Jump to content

Talk:Men's rights movement: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 137: Line 137:
::[[User:Ice fly editor|Ice fly editor]] ([[User talk:Ice fly editor|talk]]) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
::[[User:Ice fly editor|Ice fly editor]] ([[User talk:Ice fly editor|talk]]) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


: Response by user Ice fly editor is rather poor. Just because Ice fly editor is a feminist, does not mean that wikipedia needs to feed radical feminist propaganda about men. Facts win and facts are on men's side. Feminism is not about equality, it's about men bashing as is evident in this article. This article is politically correct pro-women radical feminist propaganda.
: Response by user Ice fly editor is rather poor. Just because Ice fly editor is a feminist, does not mean that wikipedia needs to feed radical feminist propaganda about men. Facts win and facts are on men's side. Feminism is not about equality, it's about men bashing as is evident in this article. This article is politically correct pro-women radical feminist propaganda. And why are you quoting feminist scholars to downplay men's issues in this article? Feminist scholars are biased. They are not reliable sources. It's like quoting Nazis on the subject of the [[Holocaust]].


== Request for lead change ==
== Request for lead change ==

Revision as of 18:27, 7 July 2017

Template:Community article probation

Prison Addition/Edit

After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "women are twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."[1] [2]


Any feedback is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamous7 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion in this article, citations need to directly apply to the Men's Rights Movement to avoid WP:SYNTH. Otherwise, stats like these should go in the Incarceration in the United States article. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I asked. Would it be proper to update Incarceration in the United States (if it needs to be I haven't checked it) and simply add a source to it like the other sections where a main article is linked? Flamous7 (talk) 18:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to attribute the stat to Sonja Starr rather than flatly stating it outright, but it is certainly within the scope of that article. It looks like the study is already referenced there by a Huffington Post article but it could potentially be expanded. Maybe you would want to raise it on that article's talk page. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
  2. ^ https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2144002

Admin keeps undoing valid changes - Bbb23

Bbb23

While significantly lower than 40-50%, the FBI study found that the percentage of confirmed false rape allegations to be higher than all other crimes and four times higher than the average for all other crimes.

Source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/1996/96sec2.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape

Quote: The Crime Index is composed of violent and property crime categories, and in 1996, 12 percent of the Index offenses reported to law enforcement were violent crimes and 88 percent, prop- erty crimes. Larceny-theft was the offense with the highest volume, while murder accounted for the fewest offenses.

There have not been any sources to dispute said information.

Bbb23 as well as EvergreenFir keeps undoing said additions. Need some feedback. Flamous7 (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problems I see with this are (1) it's WP:UNDUE weight given to one source, (2) it's a comparison to all other Index Crimes which is not a meaningful comparison because false accusations of homicide or arson or other non-interpersonal would be theoretically lower, (3) it's not found in other annual reports other than 1995 and 1997 (see 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002...), and (4) it's WP:COATRACK/WP:SYNTH as you're taking material from one source and tying it to a topic not mentioned by that source. Thus, it seems to be cherry picking a statistic which sources do not directly relate to the topic of the article.
Moreover, though unrelated to inclusion criteria on Wikipedia, we have issues of how these crimes are reported to UCR. It's important to consider why these numbers are not reported by other reliable sources like textbooks. The legacy definition of rape (used prior to 2013 in UCR reports) is very specific and we know that there's a history of law enforcement determining an accusation is baseless using what we now consider unimportant information such as alcohol consumption, clothing, saying "no", etc. (see shield laws for more on this). In other words, the data are suspect anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 1996 is the only index that addresses reports false accusations as a crime. Because other indexes don't catalog false accusations as a crime, said indexes can't be used in comparison to disprove the findings.
  2. These are statistics. Academic theories may be plausible, however user ones are not.
  3. The statistic is addressing false accusation, a sub title within Men's Rights wiki; it is addressing and in relation to that title.
  4. If the contribution " Most men's rights activists in the United States are white, middle-class, heterosexual men" can be stated as fact and stay based solely on a scholar's words with no studies to prove it in the last decade or two, surely this should be allowed to stay given that there is no data/statistic or scholar's words to counter it or disprove it. If FBI statistics / data are "suspect," surely a scholar's words and website sources with no statistic are suspect as well.
Flamous7 (talk) 22:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Incorrect. 1995 and 1997 include the info as well. But Those are reports. The index crimes is a label given to a set of crimes, and comparing the baseless/unfounded rate of one of the eight to the rest is rather meaningless (see False_accusation_of_rape#FBI_statistics)
  2. These are indeed statistics. I'm not sure what your point here is.
  3. Even if it is a subtitle, you cannot bring any info related to that subtitle into the article per WP:SYNTH.
  4. WP:OTHERSTUFF. I assume you're referring to Kimmel's work? Regardless, I'm sure Kimmel's data have issues too. My comment about the UCR data was more of a pedantic note than anything.
The main issue here appears to be WP:SYNTH. You cannot bring information into the article to synthesize your own conclusions or illustrate ideas unless reliable sources also bring that same information up and you provide that source. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The linked 96 report is referenced in ref 184 in that same section. Synth concerns seem unfounded. Arkon (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been nice if that was referenced then... if we're gonna use that state, attribute it to the source. "NCFM notes that ..." EvergreenFir (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So am I good to go if I make those changes? P.S I appreciate you coming in here EvergreenFir to discuss the issue. I have no negative feelings towards you and you have been very helpful. Flamous7 (talk) 23:31, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added a version I think works for my concerns using your edits earlier today but based on Arkon's point above. See these edits and let me know what you think. EvergreenFir (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When the Laws are written to control the sample data so that the facts are not allowed to be assembled for the report cited data ceases to be persuasive. When the laws cease to be sexist and the samples are valid then the discussion will be worth having. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Slayor (talk • contribs) 16:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive Rights in the Men's Rights article.

What it describes has nothing to do with reproductive rights. The right to reproduce is anathema to the right to get an abortion or disavow oneself of responsibility for a person created through reproduction. Reproductive Rights were guaranteed for women in the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to require women to sign labor contracts which terminated their employment if they got pregnant. Reproductive Rights for a male would mean guaranteeing his pursuit of parenthood is not denied by policies or laws which coerce him through the denial of employment, etc.

The right to an abortion is not a reproductive right, it is a right to not be reproductive. People should learn to communicate accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth Slayor (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the section needs to be changed, but the case mentioned is definitely relevant.[1] Academically speaking, it is better to leave the case there so that researchers and academics debating the topic are not blindsided when someone brings up this case.
Ice fly editor (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Men's rights movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much Anti-Male Bias in Article

Every single male issue noted in this article is countered with feminist-source argument attempting to discredit and downplay both: male issues and statistics supporting male arguments. On the other hand, issues cited in highly biased wiki article Feminism do not contain men's rights counter-argument to feminist issues. The entire Men's_rights_movement article needs to be reworked. Feminist downplaying of men's issues should be removed from paragraphs and placed in a separate section entitled "Contrary Opinions" at the end of the article.

Your statement "every single male issue noted in this article is countered with feminist-source argument attempting to discredit and downplay both" is objectively false.
Section 2.1 includes criticism of the idea of legal requirement for some of its consequences, but it is neither discrediting nor downplaying the issue. Section 2.2 does not contain contain any contrary opinion. Section 2.4 does not contain any contrary opinion. Section 2.5 does not contain any contrary opinion. This is when I stopped checking your statement.
If you want to argue for change in the article, please do so with reasoning that is not objectively false.
Triacylglyceride (talk) 04:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you ignored Section 1 and stopped at 2.5, because 2.6 has exactly what s/he's talking about. Lets talk semantics and not address the real issue with this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.48.116 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is some merit to keeping the counter arguments alongside the arguments so long as they don't hurt the understanding by adding too much information. If there is bias in either direction please quantify it. If you argue that there is too much bias. Give examples and count counter arguments. Triacylglyceride does have a point that "Every single" seems to be an exaggeration but nonetheless there may be a large amount of bias. I am not worried about "semantics" but rather statistics because facts win.
Ice fly editor (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response by user Ice fly editor is rather poor. Just because Ice fly editor is a feminist, does not mean that wikipedia needs to feed radical feminist propaganda about men. Facts win and facts are on men's side. Feminism is not about equality, it's about men bashing as is evident in this article. This article is politically correct pro-women radical feminist propaganda. And why are you quoting feminist scholars to downplay men's issues in this article? Feminist scholars are biased. They are not reliable sources. It's like quoting Nazis on the subject of the Holocaust.

Request for lead change

Request for lead to remove 2nd and 3rd paragraphs or to include some evidence for/in praise of the mrm. (I would make the edit myself but, due to the issue of bias, this page being under discretionary sanctions, and having trolled content, I think the change should be discussed first)

The second and third lead paragraph doesn't need to be included in the introductory text. Wikipedia states that the lead should be reserved for providing scope to the article.[2] The third paragraph is also just redundant, because the controversy is acknowledged in the second. Having two paragraphs on controversy is superfluous.[3](<-- Ironic redundancy) The women's right's lead has nothing considering it's controversy and limits the addressal of controversy to three sentences throughout the entire article.[4] The controversy would be better suited as it's own section if it should be kept. If Wikipedia is to have evidence in the introduction that supports the dismissal/denouncing of men's rights, it should also have evidence in that introduction that attributes some merit to the movement to prevent the reader from getting a bias before fully understanding the men's rights movement.

I understand the delicacy of the situation here. I hope to minimize bias. Users look to the leads of articles in a sort of encyclopedic manner.[5] The introduction should maintain scope while being concise and short as possible. If the controversy is addressed then counter points should be addressed and the lead losses the precision. That's why I suggesting the removal from the introduction. I am open to hear what arguments there are to not doing so?

The second sentence in the lede also should be deleted. Its demonstrably false to claim that the MRM was launched out of the feminist men's liberation movement in the 1970s, and to claim further down in the article that any earlier men's rights activities must be classed as "precursor movements" without connection to anything before or later. A new book published about the history of the MRM (A Brief History of The Men’s Rights Movement: From 1856 to the present) shows just how ludicrous that claim in the lede is. 118.208.10.180 (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Men's Reproductive Rights".
  2. ^ "Scope of article".
  3. ^ "TL;DR".
  4. ^ "Women's Rights".
  5. ^ "What is Wikipedia?".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men%27s_rights_movement&oldid=789499107"