Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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

The erosion of male rights:

Equal treatment and protection under the law:

Sentencing Disparities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alright Kevin, please explain some things here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sentencing disparities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Text added: "Paternity fraud is the act of woman purposefully naming a man as the father of a child when that woman is aware, or at least suspects, that he is not. This can be for personal gain (to obtain child support payments greater than that the real father would be able to provide) or to prevent the break-up of a relationship." This is not verifiable from the BMJ citation given (which is an excellent source)[1], which actually says. "Misattributed paternity is sometimes referred to as paternity fraud, a term that suggests that the mother (and possibly her lover) knew about the true paternity and deceived the man for financial gain". Note that the term "paternity fraud" is actually spelled out to be a non-neutral term, and the article actually uses the term "misattributed paternity" throughout. Nowhere in the article is the claim made that women do this to "prevent the break-up". Nowhere in the article is the claim that women do it to obtain larger support payments that the real father can provide.
• Text added: "Many jurisdictions compound this problem by preventing challenges to paternity after a certain amount of time has passed or holding the husband of a married mother to be the father of a child regardless of actual paternity" This claim is nowhere in the BMJ article. I'll add that it also misrepresents the BMJ article's conclusions which are not supportive of men's rights claims: "It is concluded that claims for reimbursement and compensation in cases of misattributed paternity produce the same distorted and thin view of what it means to be a father that paternity testing assumes, and underscores a trend that is not in the interests of children."
• Text added: "Statistics from the British Child Support Agency showed that in one in five of the support claims was made against a man who proved not to be the biological father, yet they had no record of any criminal prosecutions ever being brought" Source, the Daily Mail, which is a very poor source. It is currently being discussed on the WP:RSN whether the Daily Mail should be permitted on WP, as their fact checking is so poor. But even if we allow the source, the sentence added misrepresents it. Paternity fraud is a deliberate deception whereas the Daily Mail makes clear in its two opening sentences that the one in five statistics includes the mother naming the wrong man inadvertently (as they put it) because she is not sure who he is.[2]. An actual medical review found the average to be 3.7% of paternal discrepancy- for any reason, that is, not just deliberate paternity fraud.[3]
• Finally, a connection needs to be made, in the citations, with men's rights. This is ensure that the article stays focussed on men's rights as seen by secondary sources rather than what individual editors think is a major issue, and arguing back and forth with statistics they have found here and there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not disputing that paternity fraud is an issue for men's rights activists. It is. There are lots of reliable sources that say so.[4][5]. That's where we need to start, and accurately reflect what the best of these say about men's rights issues regarding paternity fraud, rather than gathering information ourselves to make a case about it. --Slp1 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

While I agree that there is overlap, I think the men's movement page is and should be broader than the MRAs. There are various men's movements including "Men's liberation", the Mythopoetic, pro-feminist men etc. A few of good academic sources about this are [6][7][8]. You are likely correct that MRA editors aren't likely to be happy with some of the content from academic sources, but so be it. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines for a reason, and generally editors learn fairly quickly to follow them or they don't- ie leave or are blocked. One of those policies is that WP prefers high quality sources such as scholarly books and journal articles to activist websites. --Slp1 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A list of notifications is available on the subpage: it includes two editors in this thread. In addition it is worth noting that KillerChihuahua and another administrator are providing guidance on how to edit this article on one of the Reddit pages devoted to "men's rights".[9] My own personal concern at the moment is with the BLP Tom Martin (activist), which is directly related to this article. Mathsci (talk) 04:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

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