Wikipedia

Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 8

< Talk:Men's rights movement
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Kratch in topic Cancer redux
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Stay at home dads

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is there much discussion of stay at home dads (particularly those in a heterosexual relationship where the mother is working) in relation to mens rights? Discussion on this mens right site [1] seems to concentrate on issues arising in divorce which we already touch on. There's obviously the issue of paternity leave which we also touch on but a whole host of other issues, Stay-at-home dad#Disadvantages touches on these to some extent, e.g. social support networks and social acceptence both of which seem to lag quite far behind that for mothers in the workplace in many countries (this may be significantly related to the numbers but it can obviously be a problem) but I don't know if the sources relate it to men's rights. Nil Einne (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe there has been any discussions about this. Obviously we can't use the mens rights website as a source, but, if you can find reliable secondary sources that document how stay at home dads relate to the mens rights movement, perhaps it can be added to the article! SarahStierch (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
This is actually a great addition to the article, I'd recommend starting with International encyclopedia of men and masculinities By Michael Flood p192-195. I'm sure there is plenty of good information there about it. (Not to mention there are LOTS more out there, but it's just the first one that came to mind that I had handy). TickTock2 (talk) 15:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 13 years ago109 comments37 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. The article has changed significantly since the majority of the comments were posted. The majority of the current article is not about the men's rights movement per se. A new move request may be proposed, although a separate article on the movement itself (separate from the rights) would probably be a less contentious undertaking. Aervanath (talk) 03:49, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

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

I would have to object, as Men's rights and Men's Rights (the movement) are tied together. I would imagine that Women's Rights and Women's Rights Movement (which redirects to Women's Rights) are in the same boat, I see no reason why the same solution won't apply here. TickTock2 (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)— TickTock2 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
There is a great deal of literature on the movement. There is very little literature on the actual rights in question outside of the movement, which is substantially different than Women's rights, which have a body of literature and study outside of that of Feminism. Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with that idea as well, as there are MANY sources about Men's Rights oustide of the movement in question, just because it is not under one label such as feminism does not mean that it is not there. I support my argument with thing such as conscription (which I sourced in the article), or Ancient Spartan males requiring to be in state custody after the age of 6, or we can go into more details such as rituals that are required of men (in some cultures) to become men. I have discussed this at length in this article and outside. TickTock2 (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I admit I'm new to Wikipedia, but by my previous edits, I hope you see that I am open to intelligent discussion, so What does it take to stop a move, and what would it take to change your mind that a move is not necessary? TickTock2 (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

This article is soley focused around the movement (well, the parts that aren't just unsourced arguing, or totally off-topic that is). What can be written about the rights themselves, exactly? Hipocrite (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That's completely incorrect. 'Men's rights' should and does discuss areas in which men have and are denied specific rights based on their gender. There is plenty in the article already to support this. This is analogous to women's rights. The movement to correct those imbalances is separate, as [[feminism] is separate to women's rights. I do not know why this is such a hard concept for others to grasp. Hermiod (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it should not. Articles are not designed to be advocacy pieces - this appears to be your problem here - you would like this article to reflect the WP:TRUTH that "men have and are denied specific rights based on their gender." Reliable sources do not address this - if they do, please cite them here and we can build an article around them. This article is currently a morass of WP:SYNTH coupled with a few lines about a movement. Hipocrite (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:BURDEN. It's up to you to prove your case, not for me to defend mine. You are seeking this move, it is up to you to prove that there is a good reason for it. So far, all you have done is state your opinion without sources. Hermiod (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You are misusing WP:BURDEN, which deals with adding or restoring unsourced, challenged content. I am asking to move the article, not add information - in fact, if the article was unlocked, I'd remove a lot of information which is either irrelevant or unsourced. I contend that your objection is not germane, as your definition for "Men's rights," appears to be "that which addresses the grievances of the Men's rights movement." Until such a time as you can demonstrate that this article adresses something unique from "the grievances of the Men's rights movement," your objection to the move can be safely ignored. Hipocrite (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
You are asking to make an edit which others have objected to. You are questioning my motives in objecting to this which is a policy violation of its own. You have no good reason to move this article and are doing so for arbitrary purposes. You are required to give a good reason for moving a page which is something you have not done. You have two separate objections, both of which you have attempted to belittle. My objections stands and I will not accept it being ignored. Hermiod (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
May I remind you of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:OWN. I agree with the move personally based on Hipocrite's comments. Alexandria (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Frankly, no you may not. I'm tired of the bullying and harassment this issue has generated. Hermiod (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Reminding editors of applicable policies is helpful advice, not bullying - and playing the victim does not release you from your obligation to follow the policies. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No, the behaviour exhibited here by you and multiple others is bullying. You do not agree with the points raised in the article so you try to censor it by hiding it and holding it up to higher standards than any other article on Wikipedia. No victim card is being played, I'm calling you out on your behaviour. It is not your place or the place of anyone here to decide what is and is not a 'mainstream' viewpoint. It's that kind of behaviour that caused this problem to begin with and you are continuing to exacerbate the problem. Ironically, you are demonstrating the exact kind of behaviour that causes Wikipedia to have so few female contributors. You don't create an atmosphere where people can contribute positively. Hermiod (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment. Ironically, I think if Wikipedia actually had a normal gender balance, the Men's Rights activists would be demanding that the article be moved (rather than the opposite), and they would be demanding that all content be sourced to material related directly to men's rights (rather than the opposite). If we turned this article into a reflection of what the mainstream world actually thinks about Men's Rights, it would basically say "Men have all the rights," as this is the general perception of mainstream society. However, since Wikipedia is dominated by men and has a strong Men's Rights presence, this article is instead a one-sided argument about how men are not treated equally and are getting the shaft. If you are a Men's Rights proponent you'll be doing yourself a favor in the long run if you go with Kevin's suggestions and stick to strict sourcing rather than allowing original research and synthesis to dominate the article. You'll also be doing yourself a favor by moving the article to Men's rights movement. One day women may actually show up on Wikipedia and edit this article to reflect the mainstream view of the state of men's rights. Since there are about 100 times more sources for the feminist view than the masculinist view, you might have a hard time keeping your one-sided argment. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Which will come first, more women editing Wikipedia or men being represented at all in the university departments creating the sources you wish users to cite? The discussion around gender has been 100% female dominated for decades. University gender studies departments are man free zones. If you are asking for Wikipedia to be similarly biased then you appear to be getting your way already. Hermiod (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
{{fact}} Got something to back those claims up about the university departments? Alexandria (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's called the real world outside of the Internet. Sorry, but Wikipedia does not have an appropriate way to cite such a source. That's why the article on water isn't allows to use the word 'wet'. Hermiod (talk) 20:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, According to the American Association of University Professors, in terms of full time university Faculty, the majority of professors are male. The only place where there is a 50/50 or near 50/50 split is in part time faculty positions. The relevant data is on page 6 of the PDF --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I was specifically referring to students in women's/gender studies departments, not the greater university population. Hermiod (talk) 12:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
But that is part of the problem. Gender studies departments are not the only area where articles and research about Gender Inequality originate. People in History, Medicine, English, Psychology, political science, linguistics, economics, and biology all discuss gender issues, and those are just the ones I can think of off the top of my head. And some of those fields not only out man gender studies departments (pardon the pun), but also publish more as a whole, and are much better funded than any gender studies department. By limiting yourself to only gender studies research, which, as some other editors have pointed out, do have male faculty and authors, you're ignoring a wealth of other sources which exist and may live up to your desire for whatever sources you think should be included.--TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 14:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Are you arguing anecdata? Frankly, that has no place here. LikaTika (talk) 06:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for anything. It's merely an observation that highlights a flaw in the way Wikipedia works, in my view. It is not a request for change, it is not arguing with policy or anything like that.Hermiod (talk) 06:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
In the face of such a statement as "University gender studies departments are man free zones", a request for supporting reference is not unreasonable, and the assertion that a thing is so true as to require no supporting evidence is I think this article's core problem in a nutshell. Ford MF (talk) 03:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing that "wikipedia does not have an appropriate way to cite such a source" means "Hasty generalization + Confirmation bias. I honestly chucked at that, there are plenty of men in both gender and women's studies. The difference is that I can source it. As a matter of fact I can source it to 30 years ago, which means that the many men in said fields had plenty of time to influence the subject. Noformation Talk 04:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
No, it means real world information which Wikipedia does not support. Hermiod (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but real world information without support is called an anecdote. Not to mention that many groups do studies on that very issue on a regular basis and publish their results. I'm curious as to which sources you'd actually find acceptable, since WP requires statements to have sources like Noformation and I provided. --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 12:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is of course not relevant to the move/not move. But it is also wrong to say that arguments adduced on talk pages need to be backed up with reliable sources. Hermiod is clearly correct, if hyperbolic, to call gender studies departments man free - they are usually either all female or almost all female. http://userpages.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/programs.html contains a list of 900 gender studies department. Out of interest I looked the first six I could connect to, all had academic staff between 5 and 10 and half had one male, half had no males. I don't think this would surprise anybody. What did surprise me slightly was that Hermiod was being challenged over the statement. And of course even more surprising is attempted rebuttal which refers to an article - well a short piece of introductory text - which thinks eight out of forty is one quarter - it is, interestingly (but not statistically significantly), the same one in five that was the maximum percentage my spot check turned up. Rich Farmbrough, 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC).
I do not agree with the move, they should be two seperate articles. However Alexandria makes a good point, it is rather biased (and im male) and could use some sources and sections on the other side of mens rights. ie we have them all.Meatsgains (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. I'm reading through this article for the first time and I'm concerned that the scope and focus of the article is just too vague to be viable on wikipedia. There's stuff here about ancient greece and Pakistan and divorce in the US and its very unclear what the common theme is beyond "Disparities in the treatment of men and women by law and institutions across history and cultures". Are there sources which connect, say, church policies to only ordain men with the percentage of men who file for divorce in the US with the military obligations of men in Ancient Greece under the framework of men's rights? If not, than I think throwing all that stuff into the same "men's rights" article is original research. My recommendation here would be focus on the platform of this men's rights movement (whatever it is) and to provide as much context for each specific issue as possible. If there isn't a source connecting an issue to the topic of "men's rights" than get it out of the article. (comment copied from ANI discussion) GabrielF (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry can you clarify what your saying exactly? Men's rights and Men's Rights Movement are not the same thing. We have Men's rights which deals with things like ancient Greece, and we have the current (modern) movement. It's very similar to what you see in Women's rights and Women's Rights Movement. Notice how those two pages redirect to each other? TickTock2 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, now I think I understand what's going on here. This article is trying to mimic the structure of women's rights except from a male perspective. Note the similarities in the intro paragraphs and the topics discussed. Got it. The problem is that these are two completely different animals. Talking about the relative status of men and women in history provides needed context for a discussion of why the women's rights movement believed what it did. Also, there's a history of change in the rights of women. There's a perfectly logical flow from talking about how women in ancient greece (which was responsible for much of Western culture) had few civic and political rights to talking about the middle ages, to the enlightenment and the suffragettes and the modern era. These developments were all related. What is the relation between, say, military obligations for men in ancient greece and prison rape in contemporary society? The structure that works for the women's rights article utterly fails for the men's rights article. The only way that I think it would be permissible to link, say, ancient greece and the men's rights movement in the same article would be if you had a source that said something to the effect of "the men's rights movement is driven by a feeling that men have lost the traditional role in society that they enjoyed since ancient times" or something to that effect which makes the link explicit. Otherwise including stuff in this article "because the women's rights article does it" is just POV nonsense. GabrielF (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support I agree that it's rather vague/fringey in regards to content, sources and ideas (nothing personal, folks!), and that it might be more beneficial to create a page that can examine the belief system and culture of men's rights as a movement, and per GabrielF. SarahStierch (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view's "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views," wouldn't an MRA page allow a uh...how do I put this...a page where that tiny minority's views could be expressed? An article...devoted to those views? mordicai. (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Can you expand on this a little bit? what do you believe is a tiny minority? The advocates, the rights, or what? How do you separate out the current rights from the movement? TickTock2 (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The mainstream view of the world-wide state of men's rights can pretty much be found already in the article patriarchy. This article, however, reflects the views of (American) men's rights activists, not the rest of the world. Thus it is not in line with WP:NPOV. If it is moved, that won't be an issue. Kaldari (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong support for the reasons listed by mordeicai and kaldari - and because the fringe movement MRM does not define what men's rights are. Giving their arguments weight and space here does not seem to comply with policies. LikaTika (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
@TickTock I think Kaldari was referring to the article now - in relation to the recent coincidental influx of meatpuppets, men's rights activists, and editors who took breaks out only reappear again when this article became something of controversy. I don't think he's referring to the articles previous status, which you have primarily been involved in. I think myself, and others who were involved or observing the teamwork and editing (albiet slow, but that's how it goes) taking place a few weeks ago would say they were impressed by the tedious and well organized process. That's all gone to hell, with the recent situation. SarahStierch (talk) 15:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Judging by the discussions above (and the current article lead which includes things like "lack of social support services for men" and "decline of college enrollment"), I think a lot of people really want this article to be about the Men's rights movement. If it isn't moved, we should work towards making it reflect the mainstream world-wide view of men's rights, not the one-sided view of men's rights advocates (as it has since its creation in 2005). Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Strong object. Attempt to move the page is politically motivated and not consistent with Wikipedia's neutrality policies. Hermiod (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)User Hermiod has also objected above. Hipocrite (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's assume good faith and not make assumptions about other people's motives. GabrielF (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've tried but there's only so much trust I can be asked to give, given the mockery of the subject from the same users posting here I've seen on the Admins notice board. I am quite willing to accept that most people edit in good faith but this has been an entirely one sided view so far. Hermiod (talk) 21:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's be crystal clear here - the attempt to move the page is by me. I have not posted on the admins notice board regarding this subject. How could posts to the admin notice board have anything to do with my motives? Be extremely clear. Hipocrite (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've been clear. The suggestion to move the page was made earlier today, not by you. You are only the one who did the paperwork. It has since been supported by users who clearly have political objections to the subject itself and therefore I cannot assume good faith from anyone who votes to move the page. Additionally, you specifically stated earlier that my vote should be ignored. That is disrespectful. Hermiod (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
The entire reason the move is being suggested is that the current article isn't NPOV. It currently reflects the views of Men's rights activists, not the mainstream views of the world. If the article is moved, people will be able to focus on the men's rights POV as most of the editors of this article seem to prefer. Why is this not a win-win suggestion? Kaldari (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Support. Clearly there are conceptually different things which need disentangling. Put it this way: I am a man, I'm not too keen on the Men's Rights movement but, all the same, I do feel that I should have rights. Also agree with GabrielF that the article is actually in a worse state than the RfC question is letting on and seems almost randomly generated in parts. --FormerIP (talk) 21:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Objectively [*ahem*] ... objectively there exists a topic that is aptly called men's rights. It is distinct from another topic: a movement to promote men's rights. The topic of the article is pretty clearly men's rights. If particular movements are mentioned, that is only subsidiary. The article's clear focus is on the rights themselves, and their acceptance or denial. We do not conflate Slavery and Abolition of slavery (which redirects to Abolitionism, as a movement), or Women's rights and such articles as Feminism. We not marginalise Women's rights by reducing its advertised scope so that it seems a mere movement or pressure group. Rather, Women's rights movement redirects to Women's rights; in parallel (since the topics and detailed contents are indeed parallel, as inspection shows), Men's rights movement redirects to Men's rights. If we change one, we ought to change its mirror image. I am assuming that editors here are against sex discrimination, and in favour of equal treatment regardless of political salience, or of success in achieving the rights treated in these articles. Objectivity. NoeticaTea? 21:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    I don't agree that we need to treat the articles men's rights and women's rights accordingly. These topics are very distinct, with distinct histories and traditions of scholarship and WP:NOR demands that we treat them as such. We don't have much of a concept of "precedent" on wikipedia - just because there's a consensus around one article doesn't mean that that consensus needs to apply to another article. Having said that, my goal for this article is to see it brought into focus. Hipocrite seems to favor removing a lot of the historical material and focusing on the platform of the men's rights movement. Another approach would be to look at the rights and privileges historically offered to men with some discussion of how people believe those rights should be expanded. That seems to be what you're going for. I think that's an okay approach although more difficult to implement because its a broader topic. Ultimately, if the consensus is to focus the article in that direction than certain sections would still have to go - prison rape for instance, or cancer funding, since they really have nothing to do with men's "rights". GabrielF (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm really going to have to check and see whether rape is mentioned in any feminism articles if you think the treatment of male prisoners isn't a men's rights issue.Hermiod (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that it doesn't matter what the feminism articles say about rape because we don't run things on a "but that article got to include it" basis. GabrielF (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
A curious response, GabrielF. We don't absolutely need to treat the two articles the same. We could take a political stand and treat them differently, I agree. We could (though I have proposed that we avoid this) act in favour of sex discrimination, and against equal treatment regardless of political salience, or of success in achieving the rights treated in these articles. Why would we want to do that, though? Who benefits? Is the landscape any clearer, then? Do you think, after long and dispassionate reflection, that women have rights to equal treatment (and an article should be devoted to those), but men do not? Whatever we need to do with article titles, and whatever political pressure might achieve, no one has given a reason here to go against the policies and guidelines of the Project. There are two parallel topics, treated in parallel articles, with parallel treatment in external sources – differing in volume of publications, but that should not be a consideration. Please leave at the door any political inclinations you may have, next time. NoeticaTea? 22:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
But they don't have parallel treatment in external sources, that's the point. Whereas there is a large literature on women's rights (separate from the movement), it simply isn't there on the men's side. Perhaps it will be in the future, and then decisions can change. --Slp1 (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Sure they do. Women's rights is very much discussed within the topic of the Women's rights movement. Women's rights is an idea of the womens rights movement. Men's rights is an idea from the Men's Rights Movement. extransit (talk) 22:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that having an article called women's rights but not an article called men's rights would imply that wikipedia is saying that women's rights are more important. I'm not aware of any policy that would support your argument - I think its expanding NPOV way beyond its intention. One problem with your approach is that it leads to situations where a user can insist that every aspect of one article match another article. Hermiod, for instance, says that the question of whether the rape of male prisoners should be included in this article should be decided on whether rape is included in articles on feminism. That's crazy. The issue should be decided based on whether sources treat prison rape as a "men's rights" issue (and searching a number of academic sources, I couldn't find any that do, on the other hand, I found tons of sources that treat rape as a women's rights issue in the sense that it is a violation of reproductive and other rights. Additionally, when I was a teacher and had to discipline a student, the student would sometimes say "but so-and-so did this" and I would have to say that I would deal with the other student separately, but that my concern at the moment was the student in front of me. If I let a student drag in another student's behavior it would derail the entire process. I think the same concern is relevant here - if we start including women's rights articles into the conversation than it adds to the contentiousness and makes it very, very difficult to deal with the primary concern here, which is improving THIS article. GabrielF (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Support, for one main reason. Sources. Having looked about, I don't see reliable sources that distinguish men's rights per se from the claims made by MRA. For example, the chapter on "Men's Rights" in the "International encyclopedia of men and masculinities" is all about the men's rights movement, its history, philosophy etc. The Encyclopedia of human ecology [2] also has a nice section on the MR movement, using just the sort of dispassionate language about, for example, the domestic violence issue that I hope could be emulated here. The "Men and masculinities: a social, cultural, and historical encyclopedia" also tackles the topic of Men's Rights through the movement.[3]. In addition, I don't see the relevance of all the past history stuff (either here, or to be honest on the women's rights page).As far as the literature is concerned, there isn't the symmetry that Ticktock2 argues for: there is an extensive literature on women's rights issues per se, likely because globally over history, women did have a lot more catching up to do, with regard to voting, property, job opportunities etc. For men's rights the literature is all couched around the MRM. However, I think it also needs to be made clear that even if the page gets moved, it doesn't mean that the policies go out the window, and MRA talking points are the main feature. It still has to follow the rules, and accept the good and the bad according to the sources. --Slp1 (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Coda- my point about men's and women's rights articles not being symmetrical has been made much more eloquently and clearly by GabrielF while I was typing this up. I agree wholeheartedly. --Slp1 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Support No support that this topic differs from "Men's rights movement." Furthermore, there's not a lot salvageable in this article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
"Rights specific to men" has the potential to be different topic from MRM, but do you have any reliable sources to show that it is, practically speaking? Also, frankly, if that's your definition, the article is going to end up being practically the opposite of what a men's right activist would want, as through history and still across the world, the bulk of "rights specific to men" are at the expense of women. --Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I do not understand your talking point about how this article will be the opposite of what men's rights advocates want or why you think that is relevant to this merger discussion. If anything it shows how political your contributions here are. extransit (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from attributing motives. It is unnecessary and unhelpful. Do you have any sources to make to show that men's rights are a distinct topic from men's rights activism, or not? --Slp1 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Not to speak for Extransit, but one would be a historical article, and the other is about the MR movement itself. I think it's totally possible to have an article outlining the various rights (or lack of) through history in different areas of the world. But that doesn't seem to be what this page is....yet. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

-

Yes, everything's possible. But it all comes down to sources. There's plenty of sources about men's rights in the context of men's rights activism. Have you got any sources (book chapters, encyclopedia, newspaper or journal articles that talk about men's rights through the ages as a topic? If not, we're inventing a subject and we are bound to be engaging in original research to find sources. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I've typed up a few responses, but they keep growing in length...My opinion on what this article should be, is a historical recounting of Men's rights through history in differing areas. This would not require these facts to be in a specific context, just that they be sourced (the sourcing should obviously be discussed elsewhere). Arkon (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Move I just don't see how this can be a standalone article from the MRA one. So far it's just a collection of random bits of information. If we want to detail men's rights in ancient greece, create an article called men's rights in ancient greece etc. Arkon (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That reasoning makes no sense given that we have a Women's rights article. Should we disavow the article on women's rights because we could have an article about women's rights in Ancient Greece? extransit (talk) 22:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think comparing this article to the women's rights article only highlights how terrible this one is. If you have some suggestions on bringing this article up to those standards, you could possibly sway me. As it stands, its a jumbled mess of cherrypicked factoids. Arkon (talk) 22:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I am confused about how you think moving an article is a solution to its quality problems? Editing, not a move is the solution to quality problems, just as how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion is not for quality problems. extransit (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
This is the article we have, and it's terrible. Again, if you have suggestions on how to flesh it out, I am all ears and willing to change my opinion. For now, my opinion is that the best option would be to redirect/merge it into the MRA article. Arkon (talk) 22:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, I had just started working on it; I had just allready added six journal citations and three books, when it got protected quite ridiculously (there had been a single revert in the last two days). extransit (talk) 22:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I actually agree that the protection is over the top. On that note, changing my Support to Wait until protection expires to allow editors to improve the article. Arkon (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  • Irrelevant This article is currently about neither of the suggested titles, it's a poorly constructed mishmash of perceived inequalities with in many cases poor or cherry-picked sourcing together with large amounts of original research and synthesis. Most of the parts that would be part of such an article already have their own articles. Far better not to bother with a move, but to decide how best to fix this article first (which will probably involve removing a large amount of its content). Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with all your comments about the article content, and that it basically needs to be rewritten. But I do think moving would actually help with editing because it would help develop its form and content more clearly. It's what was decided when years ago "Fathers' rights" was moved to Fathers' rights movement: because that was what the reliable sources actually were about. For all that article's deficiencies (and there are plenty) it is better than this one in myriad ways.Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Gabriel and Slp said it better than I can. It is probably better to focus the title on the Men's Rights Movement itself and re-build from there, rather than trying to stitch together a historical survey on male freedom from a variety of sources. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Articles appears to be in large part synthesis and original research without much of a corpus of sources to reference in support, outside the men's rights movement itself. Ford MF (talk) 04:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

  • support this article is currently a mess of Original research and synth. At the poposed title at least it will have a topic that it is possible to write an article about without basing it on Synth and OR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. The article's gravitational center is about the recent movement to reclaim for men the rights some of them perceive they have lost to women (as if it is a zero sum game.) There is no topic called simply "men's rights". Binksternet (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The title of the article reflects what a reasonable person in modern society would expect of an article dealing with men's rights issues. I don't think a reasonable person would expect an article titled "men's rights" to deal with historical civic rights like the magna carta - perhaps "rights of man" might create such an association. A point that many people here seem to be missing is that the phrase "Men's Rights" has established mainstream recognition and understanding, at least in modern, industrial, western societies - perhaps not to the extent of the phrase "Womens Rights" - but should that exclude it from being recorded in wikipedia?Zzz90210 (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose with no objection to the creation of a separate article centered on modern men's rights movements. The women's rights article does a good job of providing an overview of the history of the concept while addressing its modern themes and various interpretations. I support maintaining a similar format for this article. If one of the previous versions of this page is reincarnated as a modern men's rights movement article, I hope editors address the polemical tone and the overly Western scope while recognizing that the movement is very broad (compare the Promise Keepers to the mythopoetic men's movement). Any move should also consider how the new destination would differentiate itself from the masculism article. Gobonobo T C 04:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Object This page deals with a large number of clear, specific, identifiable issues relating to Men's Rights, I count at least 15 high level "rights" which are subject to discussion. These issues are often subject of heavy media attention and debate, outside of the context and circles of MRAs. Most of the points raised in the article do not even mention men's rights movements at all - so to conflate it with that separate issue seems unreasonable. Zzz90210 (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC) — Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Support move Much of the content under discussion for the article concerns Men's rights movement. After a move, this page could then be changed into a disambiguation page. (A few of those voting "oppose" are recently arrived single purpose accounts. For example, Zzz90210 (talk · contribs), an account registered only a few hour ago, has only edited this page on wikipedia.) Mathsci (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Do you have any evidence to support this claim? The term "movement" only appears a couple of times in the body of the article - there is very little discussion of movements in general. The bulk of the article deals with issues that are widely known in popular culture as relating to men's rights outside of the context of MRAs, and I think most reasonable people would associate the term "men's rights" with the points in the article. Issues such as divorce, child custody/support, paternity fraud etc. are regularly covered in the mass media in the context of men's rights, usually without much reference to any MRAs. It seems highly inappropriate that such widely reported and discussed issues are conflated with "mens movements", which is far more a fringe concept with far less mainstream adoption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Please stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Also please could you sign your posts by adding four tildes ~~~~ at the end? Personal opinions are of no value on wikipedia unless they are fully backed up by secondary sources. What you are proposing might be fine for a personal blog or even a user space essay; but at the moment what you are suggesting seems to be little more than original research and synthesis. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to engage in ideological battles. Mathsci (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
WP:IAR and WP:BURO apply here. Rules should not be used as a stick to prevent good faith editing. Hermiod (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
I will assume that since you resort to making personal attacks instead of providing evidence to support your previous claims, that no such evidence exists are your claims should be dismissed. Zzz90210 (talk) 21:36, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Nothing I have written can be taken as a personal attack. Since community probation is likely to be put in place, now is perhaps a good time to be more careful about what you write. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 03:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I disagree. Men's Rights issues occupy a slice of mainstream conciousness, are regularly reported on within the mainstream mass media, and I think a reasonable person would expect to come to Wikipedia and find a page titled "Mens Rights" that covers these issues of mainstream recognition such as I mentioned above. MRMs are quite distinct, occupy far less mainstream conciousness, and I think a reasonable person would recognize that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 October 2011‎
I think you misunderstand what this suggestion is about. Its simply whether this is the best name for the article. If the article is moved to Men's rights movement, then Men's rights will become a redirect to there, OR this page will be about the historical aspects, with a link to there. No one is talking about not having an article. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: Don't use the nowiki tags, just the four tildes to sign, ok? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support It seems quite clear that what's being discussed in this article are subjects in regard to the men's rights movement and not inherently to men's rights themselves. SilverserenC 15:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have to admit that I am torn on the subject. I feel that having historical context is almost always helpful (but I will admit, that my personal love of context is skewing my opinion here). However, I will agree that all the sources are mens rights movement related, and the historical context sources are being removed by people who think the sources should be directly related to the movement. However, without long term historical context, the movement loses a lot of the reasons that it is so contentious and the view of the overall picture is significantly dimmed. After all, no movement starts in a vacuum, and if you look at other social movements they have their roots hundreds of years before they became effective (for example, feminism and socialism both have their roots in a historical context centuries or so before). In short, I am very torn about this and cannot decide to vote either way and only made this comment to bring up what I feel is an important point --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I love history and historical context too, and I agree it is important. But it isn't up to us as editors to decide what that historical context is: we have to go with what the sources say. The sources about discussing men's rights do not start in Ancient Greece; they start in the 1960s and 1970s. I don't know if you have access to Amazon "read this" function, but [here is the men's rights article in the "International encyclopedia of men and masculinities", and the history and context starts, just as Ludswig2 mentioned elsewhere on this page, about 50-60 years ago. Other high quality sources are similar. --Slp1 (talk) 17:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I agree completely, I just love my context that much. It's a problem, I'm seeking help. ;) --TheAmazing0and1 (talk) 18:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Oppose from Cybermud, rolled up due to CIVIL and NPA violations, KillerChihuahua?!? 21:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Strong oppose Real life has made editing WP very difficult for the past six months but I've edited many of these gender related articles at one point or another. I mention that as a response to the, inevitable, claims that I am not WP:AGF. What I see in this article is a group of editors and admins that I know to edit from a feminist point of view and have converged here to destroy this article. It was already eviscerated from being a decent article by constant wikilawyering but that was not enough, now they want to remove the article "Men's Rights" from Wikipedia altogether. The goal points may shift and the arguments may vary, but the sexist motivation for them does not. The real agenda is for no article called "Men's Rights" to exist here or, short of that, for it to be written from a feminist view-point. I've already read a number of exhortations for people to check the "scholarly source" titled the "Encyclopedia of Men and Masculinities." Sounds like a good enough source, but it's completely written by pro-feminist authors like Michael Kimmel and Michael Flood. It's worth noting that these academics are despised by Men's Rights activists and roundly considered to be misandric. "Men's rights activists" are pretty-much, down to the last man (and woman,) anti-feminists in one way or another. I see a lot of people writing about how this article is being dominated by MRA's and how they are biased, but nothing about how many of the editors they are arguing with claim themselves to be members of the "Feminist Task Force" on their own user-pages. Undoubtedly there is a connection between men's rights and men's rights activists but they do remain two separate subjects as well. Renaming this article is tantamount to deleting the "Men's Rights" article on WP. I will view it as a sad day when WP denies "Men's Rights" exists as a worthy article topic (even if the claimed motivation for that "deletion" is some other pretext.)--Cybermud (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose More than enough sources for a standalone "Men's rights" article. Furthermore the move rationale is not based on policy. "The concept of "men's rights" is not readily distinguishable " is not a valid rationale. – Lionel (talk) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move - the article as it currently exists is a seething mess of original research, given that an undesirably large number of the cited sources do not actually discuss the concept. It isn't enough to say "X country conscripts men" - the source would need to discuss male-only conscription as a way in which men are disadvantaged, and the CIA World Factbook does not do that. Kaldari's got a good point that if we actually wanted to cover men's rights as an idea, we would be obliged to point out that men's rights throughout history are pretty limitless, rather than using the article as a soapbox about how men are so oppressed by evil feminists. The quality of sources also varies widely throughout the article, ranging from social science journals to polemics; deciding on one scope or the other (ie. moving the article to a title that reflects its content, or covering the topic of the current title) would help us source the article better. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. While this article is something a skeleton at this point, it is clearly no longer substantially about the "men's rights movement." A move, now, simply wouldn't make sense. Undiskedste (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I confess to being disappointed by this close: a strong majority (particularly of experienced editors) supported the move, with what I think were fairly strong policy-based arguments - though I guess I am a bit biased here! The closer's view that the article has changed significantly since the RFC was posted is true, but actually the content of the article is now considerably more about the men's rights movement that than it was at the time.[4] And it is likely to become even more so in the future, since despite multiple requests to those opposing the move, I can't see that anybody has been able to find reliable sources that mention men's rights independently of the men's rights movements claims. I don't know if it is possible or desirable to ask for a second opinion on this. What do others think? --Slp1 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Naturally I think it would be fine for some interested party to create a "Men's rights movement" article about the (apparently) historic topic. But why does this article have to become that article? There are clearly topics here that do not belong to the "Men's rights movement" to which many here have been referring. Undiskedste (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

GENITAL MUTILATION. aka circumcision

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Why this article doesn't cover this subject? That is a very important point and needs to be addressed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

http://menshealth.about.com/od/genitalsexualissues/a/circum_comp.htm

http://www.circumstitions.com/Complic.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.230.156.66 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad you think it's important, however the source has to discuss it in relation to Men's Rights, which I didn't see any of yours that did so. If you have any we'd welcome any useful additions. TickTock2 (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I've added in a brief section on circumcision. Note that 2 of my 3 sources directly relate the concept of "men's rights" to circumcision. See, it's not that hard! Interestingly the best reference was actually an article on genital mutilation from a feminist magazine. It included quotes like: "Women’s defense of men’s right to bodily integrity and their work against MGM [circumcision] will not have a negative impact on their struggle against FGM" and "When women acknowledge that gender issues include men’s rights as well, more open-minded men will support women’s rights." Kaldari (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Kaldari, I'm not sure it makes sense to include the phrase, "including feminists." In context, it is a rather pointed statement--if it weren't, it would be similar to say, "including Muslims," or, "including grocers," and equally irrelevant. Whether it was meant to prove a point about feminists or not (I think it probably serves the former purpose), I recommend removing it.Undiskedste (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I just thought it was an interesting bit of information since the men's rights movement typically portrays feminists as being unsupportive of men's rights (indeed our article says this twice). I'll remove it for now. Perhaps a more in-depth explanation could be given about the intersections between the anti-FGM and anti-MGM movements at some point in the future, as it is an interesting confluence. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the men's rights movement. But if this article is trying to be about "men's rights," which it appears to doing at this point, I think it's good to leave it out. What's anti-FGM and anti-MGM?Undiskedste (talk) 00:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Anti-FGF means anti-female-genital-mutilation and anti-MGM means anti-male-genital-mutilation. I just learned this yesterday :) Kaldari (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
D'oh. Of course they do. Undiskedste (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Cancer redux

Latest comment: 13 years ago59 comments12 people in discussion

Going back for a second to the health section, it was brought up previously that someone would try to find sources that tie the cancer section to men's rights but this has not been done and I'm skeptical that it can be done. There are no "rights" to have people research a particular cancer that affects one gender or another, and the section doesn't make sense in a rights context, at least in the way that "rights" is normally used. If someone can get sources for this we maybe should keep it depending on the sources, but we should remove it otherwise. Noformation Talk 20:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, at least for the United States. Since funding for cancer research comes from the government, and thus taxpayers, I think it relates perfectly to rights. Men may feel that money is taken from them on the good faith that it will be used to benefit the health concerns of the people of the nation in a way unbiased toward a particular gender. If money is not spent in a way that benefits men and women equitably, then this is a violation of that trust. Undiskedste (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I am going to change the figures quoted in the cancer section to reflect numbers from a more trustworthy source (currently, the reference is a Businessweek article--hardly worthy). The American Cancer Society estimated in 2010 there were 39840 deaths to breast cancer and 32050 deaths to prostate cancer. That coupled with the fact that more men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and the vastly disproportionate spending, I think that this is a case that needs to remain in the article. Let me reinforce that: this page (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/NCI/research-funding) shows that less than half the amount spent on breast cancer is spent on prostate cancer. This page: (http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-026210.pdf) shows that there are more than 80% as many deaths from prostate cancer each year (as of 2010, but the number climbs) as there are deaths from breast cancer.Undiskedste (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
More interestingly, when you add up the dollars and deaths on prostate, testicular, and penile cancer, and compare them to the dollars and deaths on breast and female genital cancers, the disparity is undeniable.Undiskedste (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not relevant. Do any reliable secondary sources discuss cancer with respect to Men's rights? (Again, this problem would go away if this article was about the Movement). Hipocrite (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Hipocrite, can you suggest an article where this section belongs? Certainly it belongs somewhere; it is known, and therefore has a place in an encyclopedia. Let's not delete it before we find or decide its proper home.Undiskedste (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Could you list your other wikipedia accounts, please? It belongs in an article about the fringe group of "Men's rights activists," as one of their outlandish claims. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Debates about the relevancy of this section aside, I think your suggestion that the two separate documents from the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute are somehow coming from fringe, "men's rights activist" groups is a little silly. Could you explain to me the link between the ACS, NCI, and fringe "men's rights activist" groups? (To answer your personal question, I have no other Wikipedia accounts. I have made note on your talk page of your personal attacks here and I hope you will answer my request for at least a note of apology or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.)Undiskedste (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit was highly problematic OR by SYNTH - specifically, "Thus, while more than 80% as many deaths occur due to prostate cancer, less than 50% as much money supports prostate cancer research," which is a comparison not drawn by any of the presented texts. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

These are just numbers. 300 is half of 600 and 32 is 80% of 40 (I only approximate here for brevity; no such approximation went into the statement). There is no "synth" other than that of putting, nearly literally, one and one together to make two.Undiskedste (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
They are multiple numbers squished together in violation of WP:SYNTH. You do a ratio, then another ratio, and say that the difference in those ratios has meaning. No source discusses the difference in those ratios. It's really textbook. Hipocrite (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Fine, then--leave the ratios in and take out the "yet"! The ratios belong to their respective papers, and not to me. They remain true, especially in the context I gave them: namely, "American Cancer Society reports X," "National Cancer Institute reports Y."Undiskedste (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Either way, the original statement here is biased. It suggests that prostate cancer has a relatively low death rate without saying how much lower, and that spending is lower without saying how much lower. And the source for this statement is still not very good.Undiskedste (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Again, a textbook violation of OR by SYNTH. Please read WP:SYNTH. Hipocrite (talk) 22:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I will happily take out the last sentence of my edit. The rest of my edit was true and not OR.Undiskedste (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Please do get back to me if you have any objection to my writing, "The American Cancer Society reports that X is spent on," etc., and "The National Cancer Institute reports that X people die of," etc. Otherwise we just have this biased and poorly-sourced statement that suggests that this concern is not really valid.Undiskedste (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it was. Review WP:SYNTH. Unless you have a source that compares the two ratios, stating them next to each other is begging the question (and the question is wrong, and embarrassingly so, to you, given the onset age and treatment rate of breast cancer and prostate cancer. Your comparison ignores both of those major factors, to your unknown embarrassment). This will be my final edit here, except to state that I am right, and if you restore the comparison without strong consensus, I will seek to have you banned from further editing. Hipocrite (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I have read WP:SYNTH. Perhaps my comparison ignores those factors, but yours is sourced no better than mine; the Businessweek article gives no indication of sources. If you will not allow my edit to be placed, then I will ask you to delete the offending sentence entirely, or provide a better source for it. Your threat itself is bullying and I don't know to what extent that is tolerated on Wikipedia.Undiskedste (talk) 22:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
No. Buisnessweek is a reliable source. If it were not, we must remove all content sourced to Buisnessweek. Hipocrite (talk) 22:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of the WP:SYNTH issue, the cancer section has nothing to do with Men's rights. Men's rights are defined in the lead as "an umbrella term, encompassing the political rights, entitlements, and freedoms of males". How much is spent on prostate cancer and how much the media covers it isn't a right. Unless you have a source explaining how this is connected to men's rights, it should be removed. Kaldari (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Strongly agreed. Hipocrite (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
As do I. Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like it's covered elsewhere, such as in this article. Might be some good sources too, such as this. Arkon (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple: breast cancer research has a highly organized, vocal, politically savvy activist community behind it. Prostate cancer research does not. So breast cancer research gets more publicity and more federal funding. That shouldn't surprise anyone, and that's basically the gist of the BusinessWeek article.

FWIW, regarding the BusinessWeek article, I think it's a bit misleading to compare the number of drugs on the market to treat breast vs. prostate cancer. Breast cancer is highly chemotherapy-sensitive, whereas prostate cancer is notoriously resistant to most forms of cytotoxic chemotherapy. So there will inevitably be more drugs which are active against breast cancer. That's not evidence of discrimination, but simply a consequence of basic tumor biology. (As a second quibble, Velcade treats multiple myeloma, not leukemia... but now I'm nitpicking).

More to the point, the BusinessWeek article doesn't tie this issue to the men's rights movement. I'm not sure how one would view this as a men's rights issue, except perhaps in the narrowest of terms. After all, even if one is male, one presumably has female friends, family, and loved ones who would benefit from advances in breast cancer research, so it's not exactly like throwing money down the drain. If you're looking for imbalances between the incidences of specific cancers and their level of research funding, there are far more glaring disparities than breast vs. prostate cancer. Hell, the NIH spent $30 million investigating chelation therapy for heart disease, even though we've known since the 1960s that it's ineffective and dangerous. These decisions are political, but I don't see gender bias or a men's rights issue here, and I don't see that reliable sources point to one either. MastCell Talk 23:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sheesh, now that is a lot of OR. Arkon (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Well, the Masculism article isn't anything to emulate, and the business week article is all about a prostrate cancer group arguing that they want more funding and attention to their cause, and comparing what they get to other illnesses (including breast cancer). Not exactly a surprising activity for an advocacy group. There's no mention of men's rights, at all. That article might be a suitable source in the prostrate cancer article, but it has nothing to do with this one. Slp1 (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The entire article is riddled with references to the "Gender Gap" in regards to this area. I am quite confused how this wouldn't be relevent in an article about Men's rights. Arkon (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Not really. The only actual mention of "gender gap" is in the title. And the article is not about a gender gap but about the attributed claims of the National Prostrate Council, an advocacy group for Prostrate cancer. --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about that, misspoke on the riddled, though "cancer gap" is mentioned in the body as well. However, this is a RS, making straight comparisons between how a men's and women's health issues are treated with regards to cancer. I am going to need some convincing if your position is that it's not relevent to this article. Arkon (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know how to explain it more clearly: a prostrate advocacy organization is complaining about a "cancer gap" in order to get more funding for their cause. Do you really think that is a good source for an objective claim that there actually is a men's rights issue here? When the prostrate organization doesn't claim there is a men's rights issue? When the more neutral voice of businessweek actually points out the some of the reasons for the discrepancies? That has been the whole problem with this article: editors pick out various stats from sources and claim that there is a men's rights issue because there is some sort of discrepancy between genders. We don't do that kind of original research here. We need sources that mention the issue of men's rights, as has been pointed out over and over again on this page by numerous experienced editors. Slp1 (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I really believe that this is published in a RS, yes, and is clearly related to this article. Your opinion of the organizations motives is meaningless. As you've noted, it's titled 'A Gender Gap in Cancer', reflecting, as the article notes "glaring disparities" in awareness, funding, media coverage, and research between prostate and breast cancer. If the source lists reasons for some of the discrepancies, include that too. No, we don't need every source to explicitly say 'This is a men's rights issue', you are misrepresenting what OR is. Arkon (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
We should have references that do refer to men's rights in regards to the subjects at hand. If we could declare that something was a men's rights movement "issue" without a reference to men's rights in that subjects source, then we could declare anything a men's rights issue. SarahStierch (talk)
Not too important considering the comments below, but I don't believe we should ever declare anything to be...anything. Related reliable sources will do that. I appear to have made the mistake of thinking this article was something it was not. Most seem to want to follow the definition of "the political rights, entitlements, and freedoms of males", which IMO is so broad it becomes meaningless. Arkon (talk) 01:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The existence of a gender gap does not make something a men's rights issue. What makes something a men's rights issue is a reliable source saying it is. The problem is that activist editors are attempting to channel their righteous indignation about how terribly men are treated into the article - this very much needs to stop. 00:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Hipocrite (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There's no question it is a reliable source, and I've never disputed it. Please avoid strawmen. The "glaring disparities" is a quote from an advocacy organization, and the complaints about funding, media coverage is directly attributed to them as their opinion. It isn't a fact... it is an attributed opinions, and clearly presented as such. And no, we do not connect the dots between random injustices and men's rights without reliable sources making the claim. It is the very essence of verifiability and [[WP:OR|original research. --Slp1 (talk) 00:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see below. Arkon (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In light of the discussion here, I advocate that the entire Health section be removed.Undiskedste (talk) 23:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

As consensus appears to be against the cancer section at least, I've removed that paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
This section was started 3 hours ago. I haven't read the section you've removed yet, but if it is properly sourced, or can be, I will be restoring it to give others time to weigh in. Arkon (talk) 23:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, let's give it a day. If someone can find a source showing that the "cancer gap" is related to men's rights, maybe the consensus will change. Kaldari (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this section should be added. If this is all that can be provided...it really doesn't show anything in regards to "men's rights." And advocacy groups really can't be considered neutral resources, IMHO. The information in the article doesn't touch on that, and just shows that prostate cancer gets less funding but has a higher survival rate. I really can't understand how this is problem. SarahStierch (talk) 00:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Outdenting (EC). I would like a clear statement of what you fellow editors need before you accept a source to be related enough to be included. Apparently, one explicitly stating a difference in how a men's health issue is treated versus a women's health issue, even using the term 'Gender gap' (BTW, I think you'd find the disambiguation page informative on that), is not related to Men's rights. If it's about 'Bias against men', or 'laws that are unfair to men', would that be good enough? Or must the source have the (quite vague) term men's rights throughout?

I have to think I am misunderstanding something, because OR and SYNTH are being thrown around in ways I've never ever run into before. If possible, could you please tell me what you think this article should be about, because I think my idea must be wrong. Arkon (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the Bias against men article. It the men's rights article. Men's rights is currently defined as "the political rights, entitlements, and freedoms of males". If you have a source that explicitly relates the "cancer gap" to the political rights, entitlements, and freedoms of males then it will be relevant. Otherwise I don't see any reason for it to be in the article. As an analogous example, women have a lot more choice when it comes to buying blue jeans. There are about 100 different styles of blue jeans marketed to women, while there are only about 2 for men. Should we add a section on the "blue jean gap"? Or the "lacy underwear gap"? Sure, cancer is a lot more important than blue jeans, but it still doesn't have anything to do with rights. Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Funny that when I produced a paragraph on sentencing disparities as an unequal application of men's "political rights, entitlements, and freedoms", I was told it was unacceptable because it was "SYNTH" to make the connection as relevant to a "men's rights issue (read men's rights bias)" article. --Kratch (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kaldari, if others share your opinion, I would think this article shouldn't even exist. Arkon (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that it should exist, but probably under a different title. Oh well. Kaldari (talk) 00:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for your good questions: I have to run but I am sure somebody else will have time to explain in more detail. But I'll just add my 2 cents that I don't think it is entirely clear what this article should be about yet. There is a suggested move to Men's rights movement above, which should it succeed will clarify the article much better, in my view. But for the present, and to explain the problem, when this fuss started there was lots of information in the article about the rights and privileges held by men at the expense of women! It is certainly one way of interpreting the concept of "men's rights", isn't it?!! Because of this and the other original research claiming various discrepancies in the other direction as "men's rights", we are mostly agreed that we need to find the best sources about "men's rights" and summarize them, rather collecting things that individual editors think are discriminatory and listing them here. Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks S1p1, from both of the above comments, I'm drawing a blank on what I would even include in this article. So, I'm generally going to bow out, though I reserve the right to be a nuisance in the future :) Arkon (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I would suggest searching for "men's rights" on Google books and see what turns up. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Haha, if only! It turns up a whoooole lot of stuff which has already been said to not fit in this article. Arkon (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I know of one book that discusses cancer in relation to Men's rights and it's Men and gender relations by Bob Pease. I don't have access to it right now, can anyone obtain a copy? TickTock2 (talk) 16:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can get it. Kevin (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SLP that the article should be moved, and I think that the move discussion has pretty much established a consensus. Unfortunately I've been very busy lately, so I haven't had much time on-wiki lately, but do think the move would be good. Generally, I agree with Kaldari/Hipocrite/SLP on policy issues here. Kevin (talk) 18:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Cancer section of the article or the entire article itself? If you are talking about the entire article, I believe the move has failed to reach any sort of consensus. TickTock2 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion has wound down at this point. The consensus still seems to be to remove the cancer section for now. If anyone tracks down Men and gender relations and it proves to be a useful source on the issue, feel free to create some new content on this subject. Kaldari (talk) 02:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Just to comment that another book by Pease (and Pringle) called "A man's world?: changing men's practices in a globalized world", was used as a citation here] by Extransit about breast/prostate cancer issue and men's rights. However, there is no mention that "supporters of Men's Rights have argued that they should receive equal medical attention" either on the page cited or indeed anywhere else in the book. The material has gone now anyway, but I am deeply concerned by this basic failure in following verifiability- and unfortunately the second time with this same editor. --Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Slp1, that is a blatant lie. Any reasonable reading of my citation supports the claim. The particular instance I have cited is a foot note in a chapter that talks about the men's right movement in relation to men's health which reads "Arguments of equivalence are often made between breast and prostate cancer. The suggestion is that these forms of cancer are equivalent for men and women across gender — if women receive funding for breast cancer men should recive funding for prostate cancer (see Dow 1995)". extransit (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not a "blatant lie", a comment which verges on a personal attack in my view. As I said previously, nowhere on on the cited page, 81 does it say or in any way indicate that "supporters of Men's Rights have argued that they should receive equal medical attention" as you claimed it did in your edit WP:V asks that material be "attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material", which the citation p.81 clearly does not. Perhaps you made a mistake in the page numbers you gave. I don't know. But it is really important on a controversial topic like this one, and especially one on probation, to stick very closely to the sources and to cite very precisely and accurately. --Slp1 (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Half way down page 81, see the footnote labeled #5 which I quoted above. It explicitly says that there are some people who have argued that breast and colon cancer should get equal medical attention because they are equivalent problems. Who are the 'some people'? Well, reading the text as it was meant to be read... Men's Rights activists.
I'm calling a spade a spade. Your argument is obtuse in the extreme. What your argument essentially boils down to is that anything this is not plagiarism is synthesis, something hardly supported by policy. extransit (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no. My argument boils down to the fact that material needs to be "attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material" per WP:V If the author doesn't make a specific point, editors don't get to decide what was "meant to be read", as you put it. That way lies madness (and unverifiable original research of course). That's my last on this topic. Slp1 (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement/Archive_8&oldid=1142770097"