Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 16:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm trying to understand a little more about policy an, I'm using other Wikipedia 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! N^oformation ^Talk 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 N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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. N^oformation ^Talk 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 [[wp:V|verifiability)] (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 - [1], 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)

religion section

I removed the entire section on religion [2] 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 [3] 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)

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 [4] 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? N^oformation ^Talk 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? N^oformation ^Talk 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia), 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). Wikipedia 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?

Listing of articles relating to men's rights - by Michael Flood

Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 Backlash: Angry men's movements Posted on Fri, 05 Feb 2010 'Fathers' rights' and the defence of paternal authority in Australia Posted on Tue, 08 Sep 2009 What's wrong with fathers' rights? Posted Wed, 13 May 2009 Backlash: Angry men's movements Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 ‘fatherlessness’ and ‘male role models’ Posted on Wed, 20 May 2009 Fathers' Rights and Family Law Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 The politics of fathers' rights activists Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 What’s Wrong With a Presumption of Joint Custody? Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 Separated fathers and the ‘fathers’ rights’ movement Posted on Wed, 13 May 2009 Myths about custody and domestic violence Posted on Tue, 12 May 2009 Fathers' rights and violence against women Posted on Thu, 23 Apr 2009 Responding to men's rights groups

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

The is a link to Flood's Men's Biblipgraphy [5] 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)

This reads as a real-life threat to stalk and harm people; editor warned, did not retract. Rolling up but leaving for evidence. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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[ily]...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, has been the victim of said viciousness and stalking. I assume KC, that you've been following this situation. Certainly creating a good men's rights page is the object here. Your assumptions of my motives are certainly not helping. 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) As you changed your post after I replied: I have made no assumptions about your motives. I have warned you about your actions. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Okie dokie. Have it your way. You've been designated for termination (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) Edit: Please stated the basis for your accusation, "You are in error." Cordially, You've been designated for termination (talk) 22:29, 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)

Celdaz, the answer is that yes, you can use peer-reviewed academic articles from anti-transgender feminists, assuming they are talking about trans rights issues, in an article about trans rights. --Slp1 (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2011 (UTC)