Crews Giles (talk | contribs) →Discussion: Conceptually: Dentrailzed authorities leads to anecdotal |
|||
Line 332: | Line 332: | ||
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
||
*'''Support''' Overall I largely agree.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Support''' Overall I largely agree.--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
||
: '''Uninvolved editor responding to RfC.''' |
|||
*'''Support''' in general-- but perhaps with more structure than suggested: |
|||
:'''Prevailing Usage and lack of authoritative sources''' |
|||
: It seems that, overwhelmingly, the term is used to refer to child custody matters and, secondarily with domestic violence as relates to child custody. |
|||
:* Problematic with sourcing is that those groups are almost entirely Internet-based and lack of common affiliation. |
|||
:* For example, a typical Men's Rights group will have an Internet presence, established by attorneys or local bar associations, have no meetings, no office, the membership is usually unknown, and members or supporters are affiliated only for as long as a custody battle is being waged. |
|||
:* Because custody and domestic violence concerns vary by State law and local court procedures, little unity has been attempted, so there are few recognized authorities. |
|||
:'''Anecdotal and Statistical verses Organizational Research''' |
|||
: I do not have the sources at hand, but researched this a bit a few years ago: |
|||
:* 1) US government statistics on domestic violence are taken from Women's Shelter intakes, and therefore do not ''directly'' include statistics for male victims of DV. |
|||
:* 2) US Federal funding provides County-level courts which are restricted to enforcing and increasing child support, but forbidding decreasing child support or enforcing custody. Such matters are anecdotal to the article-- and that seem the problem-- they do not apply to an organization, or an authority to be sourced. |
|||
: Probably thousands of men's rights groups exist, and yet there is no umbrella under which they fall, no equivalent of the ''National Organization for Women''; and so we are left with an article attempting to define a broad range of issues, of which only a few have any organizational efforts, and virtually none have common organizational support-- and that leaves the article in this scattered state. |
|||
: Have I re-stated the problem with useful accuracy? |
|||
: [[User:Crews Giles|<font color="green">cregil</font>]] [[User talk:Crews Giles|<small>(''talk'')</small>]] 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:46, 10 July 2012
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
SPLC
The SPLC has issued a couple reports that may be appropriate to mention briefly in the section on the men's rights movement - this and this. I'm not sure offhand if they're appropriate for inclusion, so I figured I'd just drop the link here and let y'all decide. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- well it's a verifiable paper publication that's used as a law enforcement resource, from a notable organisation who's work and research have been constantly reported in the news. they also did an article on mra claims. [1]. just had a look on the reliable sources noticeboard and they say that "intelligence report" is a RS known for fact-checking and has awards for investigative journalism. Paintedxbird (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This definitely needs to be included. SPLC is a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by
- This definitely needs to be included. SPLC is a reputable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.240.172.151 (talk) 05:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have a few problems with it being included, mainly it's admitted bias, which is discussed on the RS board, and I don't see any sort of "consensus" that it is indeed reliable unless I missed something, which I'm completely open to. The article they did addressed 3 concerns of mens rights, while it is an article it is anything but in-depth. TickTock2 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- I take that back, after looking at another link to SPLC, they do seem to agree it's a RS, so I cede that point. My point about the bias stands, so I think it can be included, but should adhere to weight issues. (ie this is a topic about Men's Rights in general, not a specific group) and the war on women article is written as a editorial, more than factual. TickTock2 (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- They "disprove" an MRA claim by ignoring data from the exact same study that MRAs use to prove the very claim. The CDC's NISVS found that, if one includes a male being forced to penetrate without his consent as rape, in 2010 the same number of women and men were raped - they just chose not to call it rape. The article ignores that. They also mispresent the MRA-asserted parity in domestic violence by conflating it with violence in general (the claim says violence, the study they talk about says partner violence, then back to general), and dismiss only a single study (which, for the record, nobody who posted on the issue in the largest MRA forum on the internet had ever heard of). And only a tiny portion of people assert that false claims are as high as "close to half or even more" (weasel words, much?). In the other article that talks about the men's rights subreddit on reddit, they talk about the claims of a moderator that had stepped down 6 months before without mentioning it. They may be an RS, but it's a terrible article, can it not be excluded or at least posted along with criticism (at least if a good source is found)?
I cut this out
from the Reproduction Rights section because what we have here is not really what the referenced article discusses. it is a good reference and could probably be used, but not to support the sentence in the article. I cut out:
- The woman's right to choose to have a baby or not determines the father's obligation to pay child support throughout the child's life.[1]
- The woman's right to choose to have a baby or not determines the father's obligation to pay child support throughout the child's life.[1]
- ^ Savali, Kirsten West (20 October 2011). "Should Men Have the Right to 'Financial Abortions'?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 17 October 2011.
Carptrash (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
dispute status - update?
So there is a long meandering list of supposed issues with this article. most of them seem to be non-existent. I'm gonna go ahead and list them one by one so we can get discussion going on them and move forward with either fixing them or removing tags that are no longer relevant. Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may contain inappropriate or misinterpreted citations that do not verify the text. Tagged since February 2012.
- Not sure what citation this is referring to, any one have an idea? I move to remove tag Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- If you look in the archives of this talk page, numerous citations have been shown in the past to not adequately support their content, and in some places to support the exact opposite of what the page says. Given the degree of past problems, until someone reviews every single citation, this should stay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Not sure what citation this is referring to, any one have an idea? I move to remove tag Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Its embedded lists may contain items that are not encyclopedic
- I admittedly don't know much about this policy, so if someone could comment on this tag, that would be greatly appreciated Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Honestly, neither do I. I know that formatting articles in this list-like format is generally frowned upon, but don't know much besides that. Hopefully someone else will chime in. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I admittedly don't know much about this policy, so if someone could comment on this tag, that would be greatly appreciated Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It needs attention from an expert on the subject. WikiProject Sociology or the Sociology Portal may be able to help recruit one.
- I'll say, Not sure one could be found thou. Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Someone added it a while ago. I agree that it's a bit silly. I didn't want to remove it at the time because it was added by a pro-MRA editor I didn't want to be (further) accused of censorship. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'll say, Not sure one could be found thou. Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Tagged since May 2012.
- Its neutrality is disputed. Tagged since March 2011.
- These are the same, After reading the entirety of the article I am not even sure this is even a valid claim anymore. I move to remove these two tags unless someone can come forward with something I might have missed, in witch case i move to remove one of the tags. Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- I don't really think the first tag should be used in the article - I always thought it was meant as an alternate version of the NPOV tag for using on tv series/branded products and such. I'm fine removing it. I'm not fine with removing the NPOV tag; I don't think that this article presents a neutral view of the topic "men's rights" - at best it's a halfassedly written list of the grievances of some (mostly) western groups, which isn't at all a neutral treatment of "men's rights". Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- These are the same, After reading the entirety of the article I am not even sure this is even a valid claim anymore. I move to remove these two tags unless someone can come forward with something I might have missed, in witch case i move to remove one of the tags. Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may contain original research. Tagged since May 2012.
- Generally when such a claim is made a section is suppose to be opened in the talk page. With no section nor any inline tags, There is no way to know what this claim is referring to, and I move to remove this tag unless examples are brought up .Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- There are tons of previous archived talk sections dealing with original research problems in this article (although it's not a strict prerequisite to have such a section if there is original research in the article, anyway.) I don't see a completely obvious example of original research offhand that isn't just OR-by-synth, but don't have time to do a thorough review of the article this morning. I'll look around and see what I turn up later today or tomorrow. If there's no straight OR and only synthesis left, then we could remove this tag. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Generally when such a claim is made a section is suppose to be opened in the talk page. With no section nor any inline tags, There is no way to know what this claim is referring to, and I move to remove this tag unless examples are brought up .Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Tagged since September 2011.
- There seems to be a lot of examples of views and movement chapters in other parts of the world. I move to remove Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It hardly presents a worldwide view. Are you telling me there's nothing encyclopedic dealing with men's rights outside of the Western developed world and India? I can think of some pretty hugely significant men's rights issues in China, for example. The tag should stay until the article makes more than a token effort to represent a worldwide view. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lot of examples of views and movement chapters in other parts of the world. I move to remove Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- It may contain previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. Tagged since May 2012.
- First time seeing this tag. No comment until I can research it a little bit more Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, this is just a synth tag. it was tagged in may but i see no comments on it in the talk page nor any examples of with this is referring to. Since no talk entry was created I move to remove tag. Kyleshome (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- There have been literally tons of talk page entries talking about synthesis issues with this article, just look at the archives. It's been a while since I looked in-depth through this article for issues, but just offhand, the second section of the military conscription section is an example of synthesis. I'm sure there are more. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:30, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, this is just a synth tag. it was tagged in may but i see no comments on it in the talk page nor any examples of with this is referring to. Since no talk entry was created I move to remove tag. Kyleshome (talk) 07:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- First time seeing this tag. No comment until I can research it a little bit more Kyleshome (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
One more note: one thing I've suggested in the past, that I still think would be a good idea, would be to redirect men's rights to human rights and to create a separate article specifically about the MRM. This would reduce a lot of these issues, like making the globalize tag no longer relevant since it's not a global movement. It would also allow for more of a history of the MRM to be included, and for more use of MRM sources (since you can in a limited way use sources written by groups in articles about themselves, even when many of those sources wouldn't be acceptable in a general article.) Last time I suggested it the idea had mixed support, with (in something that surprised me) a lot of the MRA posters from reddit who flooded in vigorously opposing it. I think this would result in a better/more encyclopedic pair of pages, and also pages that are more to the liking of the MRA folks. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Successful Suicide Rate
This article will morph for the forseeable future under the stream of impartial biased people from every side of every related issue, so excuse me for picking a small spot in this article that popped out as possibly an artifact of edit warring. In the section titled "Men's rights movement" (odd capitalization, since the existence of the section implies that the MRM is a proper noun) I think the qualifier "successful" in front of suicide is a symptom of the argument over this article.
♠ To begin with, we refer to successful suicide as just "suicide," do we not? We never talk about the recent string of "successful suicides" amongst gay teens. It's when suicide is attempted but failed that we bother to qualify it as "attempted suicide."
♣ Second, I don't believe I've ever heard (or read, but then, I've never read such literature) someone claiming to be a participant in the "Men's rights movement" complain of the "higher successful suicide rate," so I tried to check the source cited for the offending sentence... and lo, the page cited is not available on Google Books, nor at my local library, and to purchase the book would cost more than $200. My suspicion is that at some point, someone wanted to include a sentence indicating that suicide attempts amongst females have a lower success rate, but that edit warring commenced, so the sentence boiled down to include, as a means to diminish the idea, "successful."
Summary: Without making any value judgments about the participants, it's clear that MRAs do not focus on the "successful" aspect of suicide. If you're trying to indicate their positions, which the sentence as it currently exists does, you shouldn't simultaneously try to fit in a critique of that position.
That said, if it's agreed that the word successful doesn't belong there, maybe you can all fight about whether to put the data on suicide attempt/success rate by gender in some other section in this article. (My guess is that that will stir up more argument, but hey, right now it's just sitting there pretending not to be the result of woman-hate, man-hate, woman-hating-man-hate, and man-hating-woman-hate. For the record, I haven't checked the revision history for when that changed, so I could very well be wrong.) Undiskedste (talk) 22:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, the word successful probably makes no sense there. I don't have easy access to the citation either, but I'll take it out just because I can't imagine that it's supported by the citation. (This is one of the reasons why the citation maintenance tag is in the beginning of the article - the previous unconstructive back and forth over the article resulted in the misrepresentation of a *lot* of citations.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
- It's interesting that neither of you can read the source, because it works fine for me. I wonder how or why googlebooks works. The source says "The literature of the men's rights movement frequently cites statistics that show that men suffer shorter lives, higher successful suicide rates, and a higher incidence of most stress-related diseases than do women," so it is supported by the citation. I think that the "successful" point may be important, because women (in the US at least) make 3 times the number of attempts as men do,[2]. The wording is not felicitous however, I agree. --Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Dispute tags - further discussion needed
I've been bold and removed the top notices about embedded lists and fancruft. This article does not appear to contain any embedded lists, at least not according to how they are described in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. It also is not material that is only of interest to a hardcore minority of fans, but is rather a general-interest sociology article. If anybody believes that these tags should be reinstated, please discuss it below. I would also like to discuss the other tags, and see if they are actually necessary. IF they are, we need to figure out what to do to improve the article so that they become unnecessary.
- Verifiability: Which sources are misleading or inappropriate? They generally appear to be high-quality sources, mostly academic publications with a healthy dose of newspapers and books. The Daily Mail and Washington Times stick out like a sore thumb, though. The Daily Mail citation doesn't appear to reference a claim that is terribly important to the article, and the Washington Times is used to back up two statements that also have other sources. We could probably excise them without any major loss to the article. Foundation of Male Studies might also be sub-par. Are there any subject-matter experts who could do a more thorough review of the academic sources? It is possible that some of them come from poor-quality journals, I just don't have the expertise to determine that.
- Expert attention: Yes, it may be a good idea to have an expert review the sources (see above). I'm not sure if having a tag at the top of the article is beneficial, though. Thoughts?
- Worldwide view: The article seems to contain information about situations in the United States, Canada, Australia, UK and India. Are there any other parts of the world where men's rights is an issue? If there are, i'm sure we can find sources. If not, we can remove the notice. Either way, it may be a good idea to beef up the sections about non-US issues.
- Synthesis: Yes, this appears to be a problem. What is needed is to try to limit the conclusions we draw from sourced statements, unless the sources themselves draw those conclusions. It should be a fairly easy problem to fix, but I would suggest going after the low-hanging fruit first.
- Original research: The OR problem in this article seems to be a synth problem. There are very few uncited statements, and I can't find a single OR issue that isn't also synthesis, making this particular tag redundant. Unless there are objections, i'll remove it once I finish reviewing the article.
- Neutrality: This does appear to be a problem, but a minor one. I see lots of weasel words, and the focus of the article seems to focus on a few very narrow issues that men have with modern society. I would love to see the history section beefed up, and the sections on MRM issues expanded with more data and conclusions from the many studies that have been done. The domestic violence and child custody sections in particular could be bolstered significantly; hundreds (thousands?) of studies have been done on both. This is going to require a pretty major overhaul though, so the tag should probably stay in place for now.
Anyway, please let me know what you think. The article is a mess, and those unsightly tags certainly aren't helping anything. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- There is a section two up from this discussing these tags from last week. (And a section one up from this discussing a citation that was probably not properly supporting the text it was supposed to be citing - the tag isn't about quality of sources, but about misinterpretation of them.) Most of the tags I discussed in depth in the previous section, and it was pretty recent. I agree with you that the fancruft and embedded list tags didn't make sense. I just took out the OR tag because I do think that it's all OR-by-synthesis. I don't think the expert tag has any point to it, but will leave it for someone else to remove. Most of the synthesis is obvious and should be an easy problem to fix, but the level of pushback over trying to do so in the past has meant that I mostly gave up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, to throw it out again, as I did a couple sections up: I still think this article would benefit from being moved to Men's rights movement, Men's rights activism, or even fork it to both Men's rights movement and the claims to Claims of the men's rights movement and then reworked. It would get rid of undue weight issues for the most part (which are substantial right now if the article is just about 'men's rights', since it is almost exclusively presenting a minority POV,) and would also allow for the citation in a limited way of sources from inside the men's rights movement that would otherwise be unacceptable that would make rewriting the article easier. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- That's a definite possibility. I'll have to spend some time thinking about how that would work, but I don't think forking parts of it to a "Claims of" article would be such a good idea. That's just begging to become a battleground between MRAs and feminists, and also a POV fork. Claims made by the MRM could easily be worked into the MRM article. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- I'd agree with Kevin's comments above that certain of these tags need to stay. The verifiability is needed because while the sources may look generally reliable, they don't support the content at times: I even found one source said the exact opposite of what it was cited to say. I also think that both Synthesis and Original Research are needed. The problem is not that the material is not cited, or that material is combined together, but that much of the content (in some sections at least) are not "directly related to the topic of the article" (men's rights, in this case) as required by WP:NOR. For example, large chunks of the section on divorce are cited to sources which make no direct link to men's rights.
- For the same reason, I do think, if I have understood him properly, that I disagree with Wordsmith's suggestion of increasing the domestic violence and child custody sections. Yes, there are lots of studies about these, but unless a link is made to men's rights issues, we get back into the same problem we had in the fall. People from every side add their "points" and we end up with an article that is more of a back and forth about domestic violence than about men's rights. We have the domestic violence article for that.
- As I've said before, I completely support the notion that this article should be moved to men's rights movement. I've did a lot of research in this area earlier - before I got discouraged by the battlefield mentality - and the plain fact is that whenever you find reliable sources about "men's rights", they are 99% of the time talking about the men's rights movement and their claims. It would also open the way to more discussion of the history etc. I don't think we would want a "claims" one, which I agree would likely end up a point of view fork and a massive battleground to boot. --Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, some of the tags need to stay for now, particularly synthesis and neutrality tags because the article is a mess. I disagree that all the sources have to be directly about men's rights. For example, let's say that there is a study done on "primary aggressor" laws that shows 25% of complaints against women result in the man being arrested. Even though the study might not specifically mention the MRM, it is still solid evidence of discrimination against men in domestic violence laws. Of course I don't know if such a study exists and pulled the numbers completely out of my ass, but if there is a reliable source like that it should be used in the article.
- I see lots of battleground mentality on the talkpage archives that seems to have compromised the article quality and driven away some good editors. I'm not going to get heavily involved in the serious content disputes that will undoubtedly erupt in the future, but as an admin I can remain impartial and help make sure that everyone on both sides plays fair and remains civil, which should attract a higher quality of discourse and hopefully improve the article's quality. The WordsmithTalk to me 23:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC
- I really, truly disagree with you that a connection to men's rights doesn't need to be made in sources, and other editors in the past on this page have concurred with this view, which is also supported by policy, as I pointed out above. We cannot have individual editors deciding what shows discrimination or deciding that something is a men's rights issue. As somebody pointed out earlier, saying we don't need the connection made in the reliable sources leaves open to somebody claiming that since menhave fewer jean styles available to them as compared to women, they are discriminated against and this is a men's rights issue. It's an farcical example but not so far from the truth. In this article we have already taken out claims about refugees, social security, parental leaves etc which nobody but individual editors had thought were violations of men's rights or discriminatory.--Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that a separate claims article is likely a bad idea, but do think that an MRM one would be a good start towards a non-totally worthless article. And I also agree with Slp1 here - using your theoretical study to support such a claim would absolutely be an example of improper synthesis (and also, probably, an inappropriate use of a primary source, unless it was a meta-analysis/review article.) When I have more time later on, I'll explain in more detail if you'd like, but I think that your example is really a pretty straightforward violation of WP:SYNTH. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
- I would very much like to hear your reasoning in more detail, though I think my previous statement may not have been as clear as I would like. I'm not proposing that we use the sources to draw conclusions that are not in the sources themselves. However, if we have sources that say that women initiate most divorces and that it is a men's rights issue, it would be acceptable to use numbers from a general-purpose study on who initiates divorces. If we limit ourselves to studies that are specifically about the MRM, we run the risk of limiting ourselves to potentially biased sources. I'm just proposing using the nonspecific studies to provide numbers and statistics, not to draw conclusions from them. We use arguments that sources themselves use. To quote WP:SYNTH, "'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." The WordsmithTalk to me 17:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Rename article to Men's Rights Movement, also serious article issues
Trying to address scope of article, as well as issues with the use of sources when it comes to describing the subject. A lot of the sources come from other than the subject of the article, rather than self-declarations, and I feel this is causing problems with the article's tone, as well as WP:SYNTH issues.
--JasonMacker (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm proposing that this article be renamed to Men's Rights Movement, because the current scope of the article is only dealing with the men's rights movement. In the lede, it states:
- Men's rights have been the subject of a variety of social and political movements, including men's liberation, profeminists, mythopoetic men's movement, gay male liberation, Promise Keepers, men's rights movement, and antifeminism.
So how come there is ZERO information in the article about all those things, except for the men's rights movement? In the Issues section it blatantly states "men's rights movement" and doesn't say anything about all the rest of the things associated with men's rights.
If someone wants to counter with WP:SOFIXIT, I wanted to open this up to discussion because of the Talk:Men's rights/Article probation and see users more experienced than me give their ideas on this. I can see this going two ways:
- Men's Rights, sans Men's Rights Movement, is a notable enough subject that it deserves its own article.
- Men's Rights should not give WP:UNDUE weight to only one aspect of it (namely, the Men's Rights Movement), and not also discuss antifeminism, profeminism, and other things associated with Men's Rights. Especially since the Men's Rights Movement isn't a mainstream accepted movement, so how come the are granted a monopoly on the term "Men's Rights"?
Content
As far as reliable sources go, I must say that some of them are no good, and I'm going to start removing them in a few days if nobody pipes up with a good reason to keep them. Here's a breakdown based on section:
Divorce
First sentence seems okay, but the second sentence seems off.
- Rich Doyle wrote of the view...
Who is Rich Doyle and why does his opinion matter? He doesn't have a Wiki Article, and a Google search doesn't bring up anyone with prominence.
The next paragraph begins:
- Laws and practices regarding spousal support, maintenance or alimony vary considerably by country and culture...
This paragraph seems out of place. Okay, it's just a bunch of facts about alimony. What does this have to do with Men's Rights or the Men's Rights Movement? Is there anyone notable within the MRM who is using these facts to argue for his/her cause? I say this paragraph should be taken right out unless someone can show me some relevancy.
The paragraph continues:
- In the United States, the current alimony laws are challenged for constitutionality, assignment of temporary vs. permanent financial support paid to a spouse, and fair and equitable treatment under family law; There are several men's rights crusades to reform alimony at a state and federal level, including Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.
This statement is cited to
- Levitz, Jennifer. (October 31, 2009). "The New Art of Alimony." Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 25, 2011.
Yet, this source makes NO mention of Men's rights or the Men's Rights Movement. Also, using the word "crusade" here seems a little bizarre and definitely not neutral.
The same citation is used for the following statement:
- Now that women make up a large percentage of the workforce, existing laws regarding alimony in the United States have come into question.
Come into question BY WHO? Again, the source doesn't mention Men's Rights or the Men's Rights Movement, so it seems strange to be using the passive voice here. And again, the paragraph this statement is in doesn't even provide context... all it does is state the facts about how the workforce is changing, but there is no mention of how this is relevant to the men's rights movement at all. If there are MRM leaders who take issue with this, they should be quoted and sourced. Simply presenting these "facts" is not enough; there needs to be relevance.
Anti-Dowry Movement
The section on the SIFF looks great as far as I can tell, except for that one unsourced statement with a citation needed tag. That needs to be removed but I'll give it a few days before it gets taken out.
Reproductive rights
This section entirely makes NO mention of Men's Rights or the Men's Rights movement. Is there anyone notable within the movement who has discussed reproductive rights in this context? Otherwise, this is WP:SYNTH and the only ones linking this issue with the Men's Rights Movement are the editors who added it to the article.
I say this section should also be removed entirely.
Adoption
First sentence is fine, but why is Oregon's adoption laws randomly brought up? Is there MRM presence in Oregon (or elsewhere) that is challenging these laws? Yet again, we're just presented with facts, and not why they are relevant.
Second sentence should be removed, and also MRM activists (or father's rights, whoever is taking up this cause or discussing it at all) need to actually have their views presented here.
Child Custody
- Family law is an area of deep concern among men's rights groups.
No source for this statement.
The rest of that paragraph is fine though, except for the last line. I think it should be changed to be front-loaded at the beginning of the section with the "Main Article: x" arrangement.
Second paragraph is also fine.
But then at the very end of this section, there is this:
- In the United States, fathers were awarded custody in 17.4 percent of cases in 2007, a percentage that has statistically not changed since 1994.
Again, we see some random fact being brought up without its relevance being linked. Needs to be taken out unless there is someone in the MRM specifically citing this fact as evidence.
Parental Abduction
Nothing of concern here.
Parental leave
No relevance to the MRM is being shown here. Also,
- The most liberal...
what/who is calling this "liberal"? Needs to be reworded or shown why a political term is needed here, especially when referring to countries.
I say this section should be struck out entirely, for the same reasons I've discussed earlier (no MRM rep tying it together).
Paternity fraud
No relevance to the MRM is established. Needs to be removed entirely.
Health
- They state that feminism has led to women's health issues being privileged at the expense of men's.
That's not what the source says:
- "In the language of men's rights organizations, the feminist-inspired privileging of women's health issues has relegated men to the sidelines of medical policies and condemned them to infirmity and premature death."
Why reword it? Why not just quote the source directly on this? Also, the MRM never said this directly. Rather, Susan B. Boyd the author of the source, is characterizing the men's rights organizations as saying this. This needs to be made clear (she doesn't have a wiki article and I don't see any sources which state that she is a men's rights activist or identifies as one). If a representative of the MRM is saying something, that should be made clear. If someone from outside is discussing the MRM, this should be made clear. Best way is to simply present the people who are saying things, and avoid just attributing everything to the "men's rights movement".
The rest of the paragraph is worse, using the word "they" when the sources are of people from outside the movement discussing the movement. The sources need to be properly used here.
The third paragraph also seems out of place, but this whole section is a mess so I think it's better to leave it alone until the first two paragraphs are fixed, then we can decide its relevancy.
Education
Okay, first sentence:
- Men's rights activists describe the education of boys as being in crisis, with boys having reduced educational achievement and motivation as compared to girls.
The source is an interview of Warren Farrell. As in, one person expressing his views on the issue. So why does this say "Men's rights activists" and not "Warren Farrell, a men's rights activist, blah blah"? And even then, there is no mention of "men's rights" or "men's rights movement" in the interview.
Second sentence:
"Advocates blame the influence of feminism on education for discrimination against and systematic oppression of boys in the education system."
Source does not say that. The book's description states:
- This book offers an illuminating analysis of the theories, politics, and realities of boys' education around the world -- an insightful and often disturbing account of various educational systems' successes and failings in fostering intellectual and social growth in male students. Examining original research on the impact of implementing boys' education programs in schools, the book also discusses the role of male teachers in educating boys, strategies for aiding marginalized boys in the classroom, and the possibilities for gender reform in schools that begins at the level of pedagogy. Complete with case studies of various classrooms, school districts, and governmental policy programs, the detailed essays collected provide a look into education's role in the development of masculinities, paying special attention to the ways in which these masculinities intersect with race, class, and sexuality to complicate the experience of boys within and outside of a classroom setting.
No mention of men's rights, no mention of men's rights advocates, no mention of the men's rights movement, and no mention of feminism. None of the authors of the book, as far as I can tell, are related to the men's rights movement, nor has anyone made that relation. So again, even if it were the case that those topics are discussed in the book, we fall into the issue of people who aren't in the MRM describing it, and instead it being described as what the MRM represents itself as.
- They have also urged for clearer school routines, more traditional school structures, including single sex classes, and stricter discipline.
Again, the source is someone from outside the movement putting words into the MRM's mouth.
Final sentence:
- In Australia, men's rights discourse has influenced government policy documents; less impact has been noted in the United Kingdom, where feminists have historically had less influence on educational policy.
This is again sourced to the book I described earlier, so the same issues are rehashed here.
Military conscription
- Men's rights activists have argued that military conscription of men is an example of oppression of men.
That's not what the source states. Also, again, we have that article-wide issue of people putting words into the mouth of the MRM, and its not being described as such.
Second paragraph seems okay.
Governmental structures
- Men's rights groups have called for male-focused governmental structures to address issues specific to men and boys including education, health, work and marriage.
Again, this suffers from taking everything and WP:SYNTHing all together as one, singular, view of "men's rights groups" with no regard for the sources. The actual groups can be, and should be named here.
Domestic violence
- Since the late 1970s and 1980s men's rights activists have asserted, based on academic studies, that the incidence of domestic violence and murders committed by women is under-reported, partly due to men's reluctance to admit being victims.
This statement has three sources: two books, and a Guardian article. The Guardian article is great, because it specifically offers the POV of men's rights activists straight from themselves. However, the first book, "Politics of Masculinity", isn't even on the same subject. The citation links to a section on gay pornography. And the second one, seems fine but it's a misrepresentation because it's clear that it's being critical of the MRM, yet this isn't mentioned.
Also, this section in general isn't providing enough context. It jumps from MRM groups in India to the United States without even mentioning it.
Allegations of rape
- and have campaigned to increase the level of evidence required to support rape and domestic violence cases.
The statement here is sourced twice, but I'm concerned about the second one. This book, "Men and Masculinities", doesn't even mention the phrase "men's rights activists". Instead, it gives a list of various organizations and categorizes them as antifeminist. This should be noted in the article here.
- They protest the naming of accused rapists while providing the accuser with anonymity.
The source doesn't mention MR or MRM. And "they" is problematic on its own.
Social security and insurance
Again with problems about someone assigning positions/words to the MRM instead of the MRM itself speaking on the issue. Wording needs to reflect that. The part with Warren Farrel is exactly what I'm talking about, in terms of how this ought to be done.
Female privilege =
This section seriously lacks context. Are MRM claiming that male privilege no longer exists worldwide, or are they limiting this claim to certain societies, or something else? The source isn't clear on it. Perhaps a better source can clarify this?
History
Why is this at the end of the article, and not at the beginning as is standard format? Don't have much to say about it though.
Overall
When someone makes a claim, that someone needs to be identified, rather than simply be described as a "men's rights advocate". This can definitely become a great article as long as the positions of MRM activists are made clear and distinct from outsiders speaking about the MRM. This seems to be an systemic issue of this subject in general because it seems that the people who actually make up the movement are laymen, while the ones who are describing the movement have academic backgrounds. This dichotomy should be exemplified in this article. Wikipedia:FRINGE should provide helpful guidance as to handling this issue.
For the sake of clarity, please don't respond within the comments I have made, and instead respond below and reference the section. Thanks. I'm going to leave this up for a few days, if nobody bites, I'm going to WP:BOLD and make all the changes myself.--JasonMacker (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion
- Support Overall I largely agree.--v/r - TP 15:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uninvolved editor responding to RfC.
- Support in general-- but perhaps with more structure than suggested:
- Prevailing Usage and lack of authoritative sources
- It seems that, overwhelmingly, the term is used to refer to child custody matters and, secondarily with domestic violence as relates to child custody.
- Problematic with sourcing is that those groups are almost entirely Internet-based and lack of common affiliation.
- For example, a typical Men's Rights group will have an Internet presence, established by attorneys or local bar associations, have no meetings, no office, the membership is usually unknown, and members or supporters are affiliated only for as long as a custody battle is being waged.
- Because custody and domestic violence concerns vary by State law and local court procedures, little unity has been attempted, so there are few recognized authorities.
- Anecdotal and Statistical verses Organizational Research
- I do not have the sources at hand, but researched this a bit a few years ago:
- 1) US government statistics on domestic violence are taken from Women's Shelter intakes, and therefore do not directly include statistics for male victims of DV.
- 2) US Federal funding provides County-level courts which are restricted to enforcing and increasing child support, but forbidding decreasing child support or enforcing custody. Such matters are anecdotal to the article-- and that seem the problem-- they do not apply to an organization, or an authority to be sourced.
- Probably thousands of men's rights groups exist, and yet there is no umbrella under which they fall, no equivalent of the National Organization for Women; and so we are left with an article attempting to define a broad range of issues, of which only a few have any organizational efforts, and virtually none have common organizational support-- and that leaves the article in this scattered state.
- Have I re-stated the problem with useful accuracy?
- cregil (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)