Talk:International Men's Day

• I'm confused about why this is a candidate for speedy deletion. I freely admit that it has very little helpful content right now. I thought that's what stubs were for. Is it really better for Wikipedia to be entirely silent about this cultural event, than for it to have a stub with little content and a link to learn more? --67.180.142.97 14:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Wikipedia has a problem with linkspam, people making articles just to promote their site or products. I'm going take off the tag because linking to .pdf files isn't how spammers usually work :) Kappa 15:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The external PDF link 'Text on Tinidad [sic] and Tobago Creation of Men's Day' is a misrepresentation as it is clearly one man's diatribe against the very idea of International Men's Day. It should be labelled as such. Alpheus 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Amended to 'Critical view of International Men's Day' Bottlegreen roses 18:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

International?

I just wonder what makes these national holidays "international"? 84.160.159.112 21:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Their title. It is intended to correspond to International Women's Day, and the creators of International Women's Day intended the day to be celebrated in all countries simultaneously.--Doom777 07:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not a holiday, niether is International Womens Day, although some might like to call it as that. Women might like to take the day off, men have to work to pay taxes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trumpy (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

International Day indicates that more than one country is involved on an agreed day. In this case there are participants from 6 countries (at least) celebrating on the 19th Nov; Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Australia, India, Singapore, and United Kingdom. This entry is categorized as 'November observances' and as 'Recurring events established in 1999', which means that for an observance to qualify for this article it must be celebrated on the November date (established in 1999), must reoccur in at least some of the named countries, and participation must be recorded by a reliable source. 121.223.98.149 (talk) 12:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Documents

IMD in Australia: Where is "equality" without an International Men's Day? Question at Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 3 Hansard (6 March)and Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) Page 4625 Flower Power Women... Canberra Times news on 19-NOV-03 Blokes, it's Your Turn to Celebrate, Article Canberra Times 20 Nov 2003 PRESS RELEASE: International Men's Day - Do We Care?; Red Roses for Your Blokes: It'll Raise Their Self Esteem, Article Canberra Times, 6 Nov 2004; Manly respect blooms if you give those blokes a rose. Article- Canberra Times 19 Nov 2004; Blokes, it is your turn to celebrate. Article - Canberra Times 20 Nov 2003 Mens Health and Wellbeing Press Release re IMD 2005 copy Make a Date to Validate Men, Article in Christian Today 19 November 2008 123.211.7.104 (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's a few more resources:

IMD in India: NGO to celebrate International Men's Day on Wed Indian Perspective on International Men's Day 2007 Press Release for the International Men's Day NGO to celebrate International Men's Day, Article- The Times of India (18 Nov 2008); International Men's Day on Nov 19 to highlight plight of men, Article OutlookIndia Nov 16 2008

IMD in Trinidad and Tobago: Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobego (CBTT) Media articles and excerpts; and CBTT co-hosts 2nd International Men’s Day; ‘Addicts need treatment, not jail’ Article- The Trinidad Guardian 29 Nov 2007 Working to save Young People, Article in Trinidad and Tobago's Newsday November 27 2007 Jerome Teelucksingh's Geocities IMD page

IMD in Jamaica: Luciano to speak at International Men's Day function, Article in the Jamaica Gleaner Nov 19 2001 123.211.7.104 (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Events which DON'T qualify as International Men's Day

This entry suffered from misinformation recently when numerous "International Men's Days" suggested in the entry turned out to not be IMD's at all, but referred to other cultural celebrations. Some of the suggestions seem to have been entirely fabricated with the aim of exaggerating the extent of world IMD celebrations, the idea being that men 'do not deserve any more recognition'. This would be akin to saying we don't need an International Women's Day because we already have a Mother's Day.

Things that don't qualify as an established IMD are- Father's Day(s); War Remembrance days; Independence days; Saint-day celebrations; celebrations of a particular male personality or hero, and the like. Any qualifying cultural event must be called International Men's Day.

There have also been failed attempts to get IMD off the ground in some countries, with little more than a year or two celebration before ceasing, or merely a press release of an intention to celebrate the occasion but which did not eventuate. These do not qualify as an established event and shouldn't be included or, if they are, it should be clearly stated that the celebration came to a halt or didn't eventuate. As an example, an organization in Canada allegedly held IMD for three years running 1994,95,96 which did not continue. A new unsourced date has been suggested claiming that Canada celebrates IMD on 25th November but there seems to be no online evidence of this currently taking place (this needs to be verified with a source to remain in the entry, and I hope someone can provide something).

Finally, all mentions of IMD need to be backed by a reliable source and included in the entry, as this will discourage those trying to fabricate false material about the day. If anyone has reliable references -press releases, media articles, letters, websites etc- please add these in the section above, as the more reliable info we have, the higher quality this entry. 121.222.170.14 (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada

The Canada reference needs sourcing or deleting. I've tagged it and will leave it up for a few days to see if someone verifies it with a source. 121.222.170.14 (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, deleted! An exhaustive search of the internet revealed only heresay and those parroting that heresay about a Canada 25 IMD celebration. Talk about Chinese whispers! It never happened on that date, but if per chance someone CAN supply a reliable published source that isn't a copy of a copy of a copy of an original bogus Wikipedia IMD entry, then please do provide it. 121.222.115.193 (talk) 07:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Found a few reliable sources stating that organizations in Canada celebrated IMD on Nov 19 around 2000-2001, but have found no press releases of continuation after that date. 121.222.115.193 (talk) 09:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Total rewrite

This article is problematic to the extent that it needs to be re-written. There are sourcing issues, original research issues, verification issues, etc. Starting with the lead, there is no way to verify that Mikhail Gorbachev suggested, nor the UN part. The given citation does not mention either party.[Incorrect- see below 123.211.81.249 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)] A google search for Gorbachev "International Men's Day" yields no reliable sources. Next, we are using a self-published webpage prominently as a source (the tripod page, organization press releases). The article has weasel and unencyclopedic tone issues (i.e. "received overwhelming support", "has continued to grow with each consecutive year", and "global support for the celebration is broad").

The claim that IMD in T&T "has been celebrated nationally each consecutive year thereafter" is not supported by the source, which only mentions 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002. It is misleading to say that "countries holding celebrations". Organizations in these countries are, but not the countries (or government of these countries). The heading "Consensus on the Date" seems like a poor choice, but this section is the strongest in the whole article and doesn't need a complete rewrite.

The "themes celebrated" section has major tone issues, and has issues in making independent, autonomous celebrations seem more coherently organized.

In the "Negative feminist appraisal" section, the use of the word "spearheaded" seems like a hyperbole and not supported by the source. the "Official reply to Dr. M. Flood from the MHWA" doesn't seem like a published source, and the tone of that paragraph is not encyclopedic (it uses the first person "our" multiple times and has NPOV issues)

Also, a small note, references should not be repeated over and over, but instead we can name the reference and have all the footnotes point to the same reference. We have 33 footnotes, but only 20 different references.

What is noticeably lacking is independent sourcing. We need media coverage in sources that are independent from the organizations holding these celebrations. We also need better contextualization and weight considerations. I would appreciate input from anyone who may have this article watchlisted, and I'd like to start reworking this article soon, but I'll wait a few days to see if there is any response to this. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Total rewrite unnecessary

Totally re-write article tag deleted. 123.211.81.249 (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No, the article doesnt need to be totally re-written. Thats going a bit overboard Andrew. Admittedly better sources would help. The reference to the UN *IS* included in the above source and also the comment by UNESCO's Ingeborg Breines in a media article in the Trinidad Gaurdian newspaper, and ALSO by Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago. [ARTICLE: 'UNESCO comes out in Support of International Men's Day, Nov 2001'].

The Reply to Dr. Flood is an official response from Mens Health and Wellbeing Association which has their letterhead and was published on thier ACT website. As the ACT organization no longer exists, neither does the website. I have a copy of the original for any doubting Thomases and it is addressed to Flood by a collective of directors "we" on behalf of constituents, and carries the official MHWA logo.

As for your picky comment that people/organizations in Trinidad and Tobago may be celebrating IMD, but "countries are not", I can tell you that every national celebration is not celebrated by everyone- there are Muslims who wont celebrate Christmas, feminists who won't celebrate Father's Day, and so on. Shall we go alter the wording of every well known celebration to reflect that not everyone may celebrate it? The Government in Trinidad and Tobago is also very entwined with these celebrations, having many of its politicians and policy-makers actively supporting the event. Same in India and Australia, and I DO have references to attendences by these officials, though am not that keen on painstakingly weeding through and adding names of supporting officials. If it helps your worries a few of the sentences can be simply reworded to say that "organizations in the Caribbean/India/USA/Australia celebrate IMD..." rather than "countries celebrating IMD...".

I've removed your 'total rewrite' box, and suggest you take the more subtle apporoach and talk about the issues here first. 123.211.81.249 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "Themes Celebrated" there is unified consensus on the themes mentioned. Organizers of IMD in the Caribbean, India, Australia and the USA have been in constant dialogue about the events and do reach consensus on many issues, such as the importance in highlighting men's health and the other issues mentioned. To add a citation from each country about every statement is unnecessary.123.211.81.249 (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Tripod page, these are mostly excerpts from the Trinidad and Tobago national Newspaper 'The Trinidad Guardian', and I merely referenced the Tripod page because thats the only still-available online source (excerpts only). Alternatively I could delete that reference to the Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago Tripod archive, and replace it with Article published in the Trinidad Guardian. Moreover I'm presently contacting the Guardian to confirm dates of article publications.123.211.81.249 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still concerned about the sentence 1999 by Mikhail Gorbachev and was supported by the United Nations in Vienna. If the United Nations supported it, there should be some official UN documentation of this (or at least mainstream media reports). Where is this? The recently supplied citation doesn't even meet WP:RS. How can our readers verify, using reliable sources, that Mikhail Gorbachev said this, and that the UN supported it? Please find another source (and if it is true, it shouldn't be hard to do, given the ubiquity of the UN). On top of that, in my little research, it appears that some men's groups in the US in the mid 90s declared Feb 7th "International Men's Day" and that even earlier in the 90s, similar groups did similar things in the UK (all predating the alleged Gorbachev founding).-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The article 'UNESCO Comes Out In Support of International Men's Day' carries a quote from a U.N. Director, and is published by an independent news source (not a press release). On that basis I think its rash to assume unreliability of the quote. There are also other news sources citing Gorbechev as the first to suggest the IMD, and I'm presently in the process of writing to the media sources for further confirmation. I have also written to the U.N. with these issues asking them to verify the matter. The Gorbechev statement definately needs checking (I agree). 123.211.81.249 (talk) 04:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

So please don't be hasty in your blanking. Just wait a week or so and we will see if more sources back the case. At any rate it seems clear that Ingeborg Breines made the statement quoted in the Guardian. 123.211.81.249 (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding some men's groups in the US 'declaring' Feb 7 as IMD, I can add another 60 similar comments emanating from old chat forums and the like, all of them independent from different places in the world. Each said "hey lets make Feb 7 or June 6 or Dec 24 (etc.) International Men's Day because thats when football season starts (or similar). The vast majority of these early declarations are hot air and attention-seeking rants about how men deserve an IMD too, or "should have one" or "why arent we celebrated". A handful of mentions declared that a few men did celebrate an IMD with a mug of beer at the hotel, or a few guys dressed up in costumes on a randomly selected date, and I was unable to confirm anything reliable. Trinidad and Tobago organizers are the first to organize a serious socially recognized IMD event.123.211.81.249 (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Australia

I found [1], which is a press released posted in a couple of websites. It states, clear as day, International Men's Day will have its inaugural celebration in Australia on 19th November 2008. However, our article states that IMD was celebrated in Australia in 2003 and 2004 (and presumably the years between), however our sources are organization press releases? Does the internet archive have copies of these releases if the organization and website is now defunct, and did any independent media sources pick up on and report on these events? A lot of information in this article is shoddy due to major verification and sourcing issues. I have Lexis-Nexus access and will be doing some searches in the near future to see what I can come up with. I have accordingly tagged some statements as dubious till these issues are further resolved, or we have consensus to outright remove this material which currently is violation of basic wikipedia policies.-Andrew c ^[talk] 04:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Warwick Marsh who made the 'Inaugural 2008' statement didn't realize IMD had been previously celebrated. I posted Mr. Marsh evidence that MHWA organized IMD events in Australia in 2003-2004-2005. Once he was made aware of this he then characterized his efforts (Fatherhood Foundation) as an "inaugural" event for the Fatherhood Foundation. He wrote- "Please forgive our ignorance... I have tried to research International Mens day but I have kept coming up with dead ends all the time. I would love to chat to the originator of the Australian IMD and apologise in person." [private correspondence]

Anyway the matter is easily settled- here is a Canberra Times newspaper article of 2004 telling of the 2003 start: Red Roses for Your Blokes: It'll Raise Their Self Esteem, Article Canberra Times, 6 Nov 2004. It reads [Quoting] "Marked internationally on November 19 since 1999, Men's Day 2004 will be the second in Canberra, and according to Phil Gouldson of the Men's Health and wellbeing Association, bigger than the pipe opener last year."

And here is a summary of Canberra Times news on 19-NOV-03 in which we read this [Quoting] "Flower power Women and families are encouraged to buy flowers today for the men in their lives to mark International Men's Day. Men's Health and Wellbeing ACT president Phil Gouldson said the day was desperately needed to highlight issues affecting the physical, social and emotional health of boys and men." 123.211.7.104 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I also have publication copy of a conference given to Australian Federal Police in 2003 specifically to mark the inaugural event; this conference was about men's issues and International Men's Day 123.211.81.249 (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) A further Canberra Times article from 2003 called Blokes, it's Your Turn to Celebrate mentions the beginning. I can't seem to access the full article, but I suspect it is published independent evidence of 2003 IMD in Australia. Note the article is 20th on November 2003, the day after the usual IMD celebration. It reads-

"International Men's Day is about celebrating manhood and contribution and achievements men make to the people in our communities, society and environment...International Men's Day was celebrated yesterday"

123.211.81.249 (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)123.211.7.104 (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Canberra Times 2003 International Men's Day article referred to briefly in Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2003 Week 13 Hansard (25 November) Page 4625 which criticizes the Assembly for a lack of recognition and support for IMD. The reference to the Canberra Times article reads:

"I would have thought that, if we were going to be even-handed and we were going to espouse access and equity, this government, in its usual comprehensive and compassionate approach in extending assistance to any threatened minority, would have been keen to recognise 19 November as International Men's Day but I saw nothing. I must have missed it. I heard and saw nothing. In fact, if it had not been for a comment in the Canberra Times the day after, I would not have been aware of it-and yet this government is always so keen to advise us of things of importance in the community. It appears, however, that that importance is directed at only one sex.." 123.211.7.104 (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It appears that our sources only can verify 2003, 2004, and 2008. Do you have any information on 2005-2007, or should we note that in the article?-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The above sources verify 2003-2004. I certainly have a press release with MHWA letterhead which was widely circulated about the 2005 celebrations which did take place, and this is a reliable secondary source. In 2006-2007 Church groups Assemblies of God and the Uniting Church held observances and there were barbecues held to mark the day, but no press releases that I know of. In 2008 Fatherhood Foundation took it up, as did several churches. So what do you want to note.... that there was no newspaper article for 2006-07? 123.211.7.104 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have reliable sources we can cite that meet wikipedia criteria? I can understand it is a gray area, and saying "There was no IMD in Australia for 3 years" may be a bit much. I'd suggest saying nothing that cannot be sourced and verifies. For example "In 2003 and 2004 organization X held IMD. In 2008, organization Y held IMD..." and not mention 2005-2007 because we cannot cite anything either way regarding those years.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree to simply leave 2006-07 out. We can mention 2005 as that was an official MHWA coordinated event with widely distributed formal press release by the MHWA director (I have a copy with letterhead), though I think its going overboard to have to mention every year? Perhaps the inauguration is the main reference, with some/any suggestion that the event did/didnt continue in later years.123.211.7.104 (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Celebration by country

I think it would be a better organization system if we combined the three major sections into one section which breaks up the celebration by country. Dr. Flood's criticism is in the context of Australia so it could go in the Australia subheader (and wikipedia guidelines say it's better to mix criticism in, as opposed to separating it out into it's own section). We could easily have sections for Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, Australia, and India (and with better sourcing US/Canada). How that sound?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with giving a more prominent position to Flood's diatribe, as it is simply one man's view and so it has undue weight as another editor above already pointed out. To embed his views further into the centerpiece is giving far too much prominence to his negative accent. I think we should delete it altogether because of UNDUE WEIGHT. As for the treating of each country in a separate section, I guess that has merit for clarity though I'm concerned that consensus between nations may be artificially cordoned by such an act, especially as you seemed to depreciate the possibility of consensus between participating countries. If we do separate into sections I think we should keep the 'Themes celebrated' for those practices shared by participants in each country. I'm willing to go with that but watch cautiously because so far, aside from pointing to a need for good sources, you've also shown no positive accent toward this IMD topic and in fact quite the contrary you have been trying to highlight disunity and irrelevance by and between those celebrating IMD, even suggesting the entire article needed complete rewriting. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Agree the Canada/U.S. needs better sourcing. It seems from my research that organizations Canada and the U.S. have celebrated the 19th Nov date over the years, but I have found not one media article or respectable webpage to give it more weight. Anyway thats beyond my call.... someone else will have to go searching for that one. I believe the Episcopalian churches have been involved, but that will have to be checked with the head office. Also the major U.S. mens groups could be contacted for evidence. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not to make this too personal, as we should focus on content not editor, I will respond to your comments directed at me and my motivations. I don't have any animosity towards IMD. I found this article because you were spamming the link to it at other unrelated articles. I came here to check it out and saw it has major issues. I apologize that my negativity directed at the state of this article was seen as negativity towards the topic. I am not here to make IMD look bad (but I guess I'm not here to make it look good either). I'm here to make sure this article follows wikipedia standards, which is to make sure it is neutral and verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources. I think we should be able to compare (but also contrast) the celebrations that occur around the world. And if there is an international consensus, it should be demonstrated by sources. I hope you understand that I have good intentions, and I want this article to be better, in terms of following basic wikipedia policies. And if that seems like an attack on IMD in general, it honestly isn't; it's just an "attack" on poor sourcing and unverifiable claims. It might help our situation if we had a third editor here. Having 3 people involved in an article can help settle disputes where two positions cannot converge.

As for Flood, I'm debating also whether we should just remove it completely or not. While seemingly self-published, he is a expert in the field, and WP:RS allows for that in some cases. I'm still mulling it over. I'm all for reducing it to a sentence or two max. That said, I disagree strongly with creating "criticism" sections. It gives those positions more prominence and would encourage more people to post more criticisms. As for US/Canada, like I said, I have Lexis-Nexus access and if I run across anything, I'll definitely add it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I put the Dr. Flood material in this entry, but agree that it could go. Delete if you wish. Alternatively a link could be placed in the External Links area? 123.211.7.104 (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Altering article

Please craft any proposed alteration of the main article in a sandbox and provide a link here, or place arrangement here first to gain consensus before altering. I'm off to bed now, but will check if you've suggested anything by morning123.211.7.104 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:OWN. You are trying to discourage me from editing the article, and that is not acceptable.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary you were encouraged to craft a template and now you are annoyed because you don't want to submit to any consensus. Perhaps you should read WP:OWN yourself. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios

This is a serious issues. Twice I have found sentences directly lifted, verbatim from the sources without supplying quotations. This is not acceptable. I have removed this one from the lead: "Speaking on behalf of UNESCO, Ms. Ingeborg Breines, Director of Women and Culture of Peace, said: “This is an excellent idea and would give some gender balance.” She added that her organisation was looking forward to cooperating with the organisers of the IMD." I am nervous about what else I will find. Does anyone else know of instances where sentences have been directly copy and pasted from the web or otherwise copied from copyrighted sources? Sometimes it is appropriate just to quote the source directly. Other times, we can summarize and put the information in our own words (what I generally think is very poor writing, and in bad taste, is just to switch the word order around and use a synonym or two, which is what happened to the first copyvio I found).-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Do not blank sourced material!

Please do not blank important history without discussing with other editors. If you think something needs to be paraphrased or shifted to another area please discuss and do it rather than blanking. The quote from Ms. Ingeborg Breines is a VERY important endorsement for IMD by a world body, and it is sourced to an independent news source. Moreover I have written to Jerome Teelucksingh, the man who came up with the IMD celebration in Trinidad and Tobago, and who personally spoke with Ms. Breines about the event; he has confirmed that this conversation did take place exactly as reported in the news source!! Further, I have written to both Ingeborg Breines who now lives in Norway, and to the U.N. asking for any further documentation of their commitment to IMD. So please, don't blank this very important statement, as your motivation comes accross as less than honourable..... ie. if you want to paraphrase (without denigrating the phrasing) then that it preferable to blanking. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you do not understand copyright law, or you cannot edit the article without copying and pasting directly from websites, then you should not be editing wikipedia. Doing what you have done is stealing and illegal. And on wikipedia we take it seriously. Please DO NOT re-instate copyrighted material. Find a way to present the information in your own words. Seriously, this is very important.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As I reminded you earlier it is poor practice (that you seem ignorant of) to merely blank material without looking at ways you can paraphrase, and without discussing the phrase at issue. I recommend you abstain from unnecessary blanking of material and instead learn to edit cooperatively rather than antagonistically. In this case you could have brought the issue to the talk page first and recommended rewording or paraphrasing, and it would have been done. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) PS. I do get your point about quoting directly. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Have received confirmation from Ingeborg Breines saying that the statement did come from her. She added her view that "the idea of a Men's Day is a legitimate initiative in the quest for gender equality". Although I trusted the original media statement as accurate, I am now personally in no doubt that this dialogue between Jerome Teelucksingh and Ingeborg Breines took place and the comments reported are a true and accurate account, although I'm not suggesting these email confirmations be used as source pieces for this article. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh and Harrack Balramsingh

Although many of the source articles don't clarify, UWI Lecturer Dr Jerome Teelucksingh was actually the man who came up with the idea to celebrate IMD in Trinidad and Tobago, and it was he personally who came up with the 19th Nov date. Harrack Balramsingh, Chairman of Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago (CBTT) assisted Dr. Teelucksingh in coordinating and publicising these events. Dr. Teelucksingh emailed me this information and I just thought that we might take note if writing about TT events, maybe placing Jerome Teelucksingh name before (although with) Harrack Balramsingh for due recognition or roles. Just a thought. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is original research. If none of our sources mention Teelucksingh or Balramsingh in these positions, then we can't mention it. Wikipedia cannot be the first place to publish information, and personal correspondences are not reliable sources. I hope you understand.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

As usual you are missing my point entirely. I am not introducing "a source" to be quoted. This is background information only and I have no intention of publishing it. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

LEAD

The LEAD currently reads: International Men's Day is an international event celebrated on 19th of November. It was suggested in 1999 by Mikhail Gorbachev[citation needed] and was supported by the United Nations in Vienna[1], and received overwhelming support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.

I'm concerned about the Gorbachev mention, as I have not seen one reliable source and think it should go if other editors agree?? Its still possible that there is something behind this mention, but until something appears it's presence is unwarranted. I'll wait to hear what others want and then delete if you agree. As the conception of IMD (and first event) was originated by Trinidad and Tobago's Dr. Jerome Teelucksingh, I'm thinking that could replace mention of Gorbachev as long as we can reliably cite it. EG.

International Men's Day is an international event celebrated on 19th of November. It was suggested in 1999 by Jerome Teelucksingh [citation needed] and was supported by the United Nations in Vienna[1], and received overwhelming support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean.

At present though the difficulty is that although everyone I've spoken with agrees IMD was Mr. Teelucksingh's creation, there is nothing outside the many confirming emails I have. I have some more hard evidence on the way (reliable independent published sources) which may provide us with the needed citation. So if we like the sound of this change we can just vote here and I'll add the info if/when a source avails. What do we think? 123.211.7.104 (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have a citation that mentions Teelucksingh, then we can say that, so hopefully we can find something. The line was supported by the United Nations in Vienna is not currently supported by the source. received overwhelming support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean. is a prime example of weasel and is unsourced. I think we should instead mention that men's groups predominately organize these events, and mention the countries in which they have occurred instead, all verifiable information.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Checked source -November 19th - International Men's Day. Press Release by Harrack Balramsingh of CBTT, 20th May 2003. The mention of support from those countries (USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean) is there in the press release and accurate, but the wording was almost identical to the original so I changed it slightly and clarified that it was principled support for the inauguration, as this is what the source intends. Please change wording if you think is not clear re 'principled' support. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Teelucksingh wrote me a few days ago on the Gorbachev question saying- "I do not know of Gorbachev's statement or that he suggested it. Maybe someone in Russia can help." I think that settles the question of whether the inaugurators of IMD relied on some (as yet unverified) statement from Gorbachev. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, removed mention of Gorbachev as violates policy biographies of living persons. If you think this is an error please reinstate with a reliable source. I shortened the sentence to this; It was inaugurated in 1999 in Trinidad and Tobago and was supported by the United Nations. and left the same cite in place as it refers to the 1999 TT inauguration and to U.N. support. I will in the weeks ahead add something more substantial as I have reliable newspaper clippings coming via the mail, but until then there is no basis for elaboration. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid original research

Please enough with the BS original research about "predominately mens groups" who organize events. Says who, you? I know of many church and community groups which are gender neutral and who have organized events. I even have newsletters from two separate Queensland schools (with official QLD Education Dept letterheads) announcing support for IMD, and one of them printed a moving testimony to the sacrifices men make and had a talk about it in class on IMD. Obviously not a men's group. Or what about the University of Kent IMD celebration which was organized exclusively by three young university women! Also, regarding- "support from men's groups in USA, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean" don't be hasty that this isn't sourced, I believe there is more than one reliable source stating this, but you have to understand that the statement is of "support" for those celebrating IMD, but it doesnt mean those supporting it are themselves necessarily celebrating it with any event. It is important you know the difference. I'll take a look at the source material and report any backing sources. In the meantime please abstain from blanking for a short time. 121.223.98.149 (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

LOL, I can imagine it now, an editor coming along and adding "angry men's groups are the only ones celebrating, and nobody else cares". When o when that stuff will end is anybody's guess. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Flood opinion removed

someone removed the Flood reference I placed in the entry, but I'm ok with that. I agree with this deletion because (as other editors have pointed out) it is only one man's thoughts and negative ones at that. Undue Weight rules apply. 123.211.7.104 (talk) 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I am the one who is cleaning up Bharati8000 (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)bharati

Headings

Introduced heading for each country as per suggestion, and changed 'Themes celebrated' to 'Observation' because subject material was more about the modes of conducting an IMD than about topics celebrated alone. 121.222.172.153 (talk) 12:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Flood POV reappears

I notice the Flood POV piece has reappeared, and should probably be deleted again as has been done by several editors. If it is to stay there needs to be clear qualification that this Flood is driven by feminist concerns, and openly declares his writings feminist. Personally i think it should go. It is rightly ridiculed as sexist POV hyperbole 123.211.97.190 (talk) 02:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Flood, being a published and notable scholar in this area of study, deserves some space in this article, in that he specifically wrote on this subject. I think your comments that we clearly "out" him as a feminist makes no sense, and I can't help to think that your desire to "qualify" Flood may be more like well poisoning. On top of that, the "Men's Health and Wellbeing Association" response does not meet WP:V, and should probably be removed. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well Andrew I know where you are coming from and I have noted in your edit history a defense of Flood on a few unrelated occasions in unrelated edit areas of Wikipedia. Contrary to your spin about well-poisoning I suggest you are attempting to well-poison an otherwise respectible article and attempting to "out" that respectibility. Note that Flood qualifies himself, in several places, as a feminist. His expressed self-description. 123.211.97.190 (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I am surprised that flood is considered here by some miguided elements . He hasn;t wom olympics like Abhinav bindra. Floods rant against IMD is just that a rant

IMD was started by Jerome Tilaksingh , wished by gorbachev and that is the history nobody should try to erase —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharati8000 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The Norwegian Men's Day

There's a men's day in Norway too, but it's on the 8th of Oct each year..

NO:Mannsdagen

I'm not sure of how relevant it is for this article but it might be worth checking out.

Luredreier 16:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

To qualify for this entry the event must be internationally observed, must be titled 'International Men's Day', must be observed in November, and must have had its beginning in 1999. If the celebration in Norway does not qualify for these things then it might best be placed in an entry of it's own as a Norway related article. 123.211.97.190 (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Flood reference had undue weight

Flood's opinion took up 20% of the entire article which is indisputably Undue weight. As his main point of attack was directed at the Australian effort of MHWA, and as he is Australian, I put a short reference in the Australian section. 123.211.71.232 (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The Flood reference again started to grow out of proportion in relation to it's relevance. I have shortened it as much as possible while retaining the main points of view, but is still a bit bulky according to wp:undue. In-citation links are given in the entry for those who wish to read the entire Flood/Gouldson's exchange. 123.211.162.37 (talk) 07:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing everything to "International Men's Day global website"

I have concerns with the latest edits, and the amount we are sourcing to "International Men's Day global website". This relates to WP:V (and then WP:RS and WP:CS). It seems like someone could post whatever they want, regardless of the notability or even veracity, to "International Men's Day global website", and then we just parrot it here. We need to rely more on independent sourcing. Not self-published and/or non-independent sourcing. Is it possible to verify any of this new content in such sources? If not, then we have verifiability and notability issues. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the global website link from the lead. there are many websites and news articles dealing with IMD, and the global website does not need to be singled out. The new reference to Canada has one source but the Hungary section requires a further link to hungarian pages. Will see if I can find one. Also moved the increased reference to "mens rights groups" (which it is not). Dr. teelucksingh stated from the beginning that the event is for all, and I note at least half of all world events this year were organised by women, many of them who have nothing to do with mens (or women's) rights groups. Will have a look over it. 121.222.250.254 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. Hopefully there was some media coverage out there, because http://masculinity21st.wordpress.com/ is clearly self-published and not independent. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll email the Manology people and ask if thier event got press. If not then you can delete it. 121.222.250.254 (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a response from the Canadians. Apparently there was a radio interview about thier observation but I have not located it online. I have no doubt that the event took place but suggest the Canada entry can be deleted until more reliable sources verify. 121.222.250.254 (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

About the intro, and relevance of men/men's rights

When I came to the article yesterday, I found much of it (the introduction in particular) simply copy/pasted from the greeting on http://www.internationalmensday.com/ (Plus some recent vandalism. By the vandal's comment in the intro, s/he didn't spot why the event existed.)

I tried to improve the writing and make it more encyclopedic. Part of that involves summarizing, being descriptive and giving some clue as to what the subject of the article is about early in the introduction. While the IMD organizers surely want to be politic and have everyone and every group supporting, this is not a reason for removing all information about the event's aims or raisons d'être from the intro. After the recent IP edits, the only clue remaining in the first paragraph is from the comment from the UN employee at the end, and it seems pretty weak to rely on that.

I don't think we should try to make the reader get through the History section just to find out what it's about. 

[Edit: I didn't see that some of this info is later in the introduction. Coming back to the article, the first paragraph appeared to me to be the whole introduction. Still I think we can be a little less generic in that first paragraph.]— RVJ (talk) 01:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the things worth avoiding is any suggestion that IMD was created by, or only sponsored by men's rights groups, as that is a misrepresentation. There are womens, men's, children's and human rihts groups involved, along with charities, gov and NGO's, schools, businesses, community groups, health groups, and numerous individuals who dont belong to rights groups or organizations. My point is we have to be very careful with the lead that it does not narrow the interest groups, or on the other hand become too long. On that basis it may be best to let the main body of the article provide the fine details. 121.222.250.254 (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with RJV the aims might be useful in the intro, if kept concise. I'm wondering if the speech by Dr. Teelucksingh down below can be useful to say what IMD is about in the lead? From memory he states three main objectives of IMD in one pithy sentence. There may be other material there also, but at this point I'm not sure if the video is an acceptable source? The fact that Dr. Teelucksingh speaks it should hold some value, with him being the founder. We could also shorten/summarise the points at the bottom of the page for the lead (I believe these are pretty identical with Dr. Teelucksingh's points in the video). 121.222.250.254 (talk) 02:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Scrap the above suggestion. After re-reading its clear the aims/objectives are already clearly laid out in the lead, and these correspond with numerous sources including Teelucksingh:

LEAD- The objectives of celebrating an International Men's Day include focusing on men's and boy's health, improving gender relations, promoting gender equality, and highlighting positive male role models.[2][3][4][5] It is an occasion for men to highlight discrimination against them and to celebrate their achievements and contributions, in particular for their contributions to community, family, marriage, and child care.[6][7][3][8][9]

That is a clear set of objectives. 121.222.250.254 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source?

There is a video of Dr. Teelucksingh speaking about the beginnings and aim of International Men's Day here. Is this allowable as a source? 121.222.250.254 (talk) 07:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Moldova

Apparently IMD did not take place in Moldova [2] this year and the global IMD website records the following: [EVENT UPDATE: Due to a resurgence of swine flu the public gathering of students in Moldova was cancelled. Some groups reportedly held private observances in thier homes. We have found no media reports of IMD observance in Moldova this year].[3] 121.222.250.254 (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)