Talk:Men's rights movement

'Reaction' section dominated by one person's reaction

It doesn't seem right to me that Prof. Ruth Mann's remarks should be so prominent in the reactions' section. After all, this is not an article about Mann, or her views on and examination of the subject (even if published). The article on Feminism lists contemporary critics along with proper citations, which seems quite sensible, although incomprehensive there.

I suggest listing a few critics of the MRM and put her paper in the list of citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810D:A83F:F36C:5CC3:DDEB:1EC6:8201 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Perceived, and they believe

Taking this to talk before I revert this, to the longstanding version. Adding the word "Perceived" is WP: SCAREQUOTES and is not supported by the sources. And "they believe" is not in the linked source quote, so is a misrepresentation of the source. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

From my personal POV, these are indeed perceived and not fully manifest in reality. But I acknowledge that is my POV. We discuss other topics like white privilege without using these caveats. I'm afraid that use here would be akin to and set Providence for use on other articles like feminism. We'd need to show that most RS consider these to be just perceptions and not supported like with other FRINGE ideas. But until then, I think we should just present it as is. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

What the sources says, the part I could find, is, "All these cases of discrimination make up the men's rights view that... " To me "view that" is pretty much the same as "perceived." Carptrash (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm... that is a good point. Do we have other sources to back this up in any way? Also pinging JzG. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• No, perceived is not scare quotes. The objective evidence is that the perceived oppression is simply loss of privilege. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

We've got two sources to that statement, The first one is as Carptrash placed it. However the second one does not frame them as mere perceptions but as aspects of reality. Edit: Actually re-reading the lede, I'm wondering if the second and third sentences could be combined, they are largely saying the same thing. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are tons of sources available for this sort of thing, with all types of wording used. Perhaps someone should start a RFC. Arkon (talk) 17:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Adding "perceived" does not mean it ain't so, leaving it out suggests that these are facts, which is seriously questioned.Carptrash (talk) 18:21, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Which facts are questioned? Arkon (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't explicitly mean it isn't so, I do believe that it implies that it isn't so. Hence my reference to WP: SCAREQUOTES. However this might be a moot point. Would there be any opposition to me combining the second and third sentences to say "The men's rights movement is made up of a variety of groups and individuals who focus on numerous social issues (including family law, parenting, reproduction, domestic violence) and government services (including education, compulsory military service, social safety nets, and health policies), which men's rights advocates say discriminate against men" ? The two sentences say largely the same thing, and moots the point of perception and frames it in what they say. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Combining them seems fine to me. Though I see no reason to tack on the "which men's rights advocates say discriminate men". The current edit, however, lacks consensus. Arkon (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Eventually we need to agree on something, so I'll go along with that. Carptrash (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a form of WP:ATT. It's pretty clear that the only people who think there is discrimination against men are MRAs, and pretty much every informed source disagrees profoundly, so we just need to make it clear that this is their belief and not objective reality. I am happy with any wording that avoids ambiguity. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is certainly what it appears to me, but what are you going to do with these . . . .guys? This is, I believe, the only article I have ever been blocked at, so I am reluctant to call these spades . . . . . ....... a spade. Carptrash (talk) 05:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ya'll are cute. Arkon (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

My name is Guy Chapman. Three syllables, all meaning man. And my middle name is André, from the greek ανδρος, meaning man. If men are being oppressed then I am getting it fourfold. Guy (Help!) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

And if they are not getting oppressed? Carptrash (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah jeez, this again? Now I remember why I unwatchlisted this talk page. I remember saying three or four years ago that, if an article reports someone "perceiving" things in a certain way, that does not imply anything about whether the perception is accurate. And it's not even as though the two are necessarily contradictory. It's definitely possible for someone to lead a coddled and privileged life on account of his gender until, as a separated father in a family law courtroom, he gets mercilessly kicked in the teeth. Anyways, I would have thought "MRAs say" and "MRAs perceive" are neutral enough that it doesn't sound like Wikipedia is taking a stance on the accuracy of those perceptions, but apparently some feel otherwise. Hope you've got your thesauruses handy. Reyk _YO! 21:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome back. Carptrash (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I think Kyohyi got a good edit in earlier, and we seem to all (at least the stuff up above hasn't addressed it), be ok with it. But yeah, these articles are garbage. Arkon (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Circumcision

I restored the circumcision section of this article and was reverted because the user felt that I needed "reliable, independent, (and) non-polemical sources". First of all, the sources do appear to meet WP:RS in my opinion. Furthermore, one could argue that the men's rights movement is full of polemical viewpoints (I'm not arguing that for the record) but it's still worth giving due weight to the view on circumcision within the men's rights movement. After all, this article is about men's rights activists' viewpoints. I'm not quite understanding what is wrong with the sources that were provided so if anyone would like to chime in on whether or not they're applicable to the men's rights movement- please do. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The following text is being reinserted. i think it is problematic on a number of levels.

Circumcision

Some men's rights activists see circumcision, especially routine neonatal circumcision, as a violation of men's genital integrity. They criticize that female genital mutilation has received more attention than male circumcision.

References

This is a very low impact factor journal in the "emerging field of men and masculinities studies". In other words, this is not an established field of scholarship and the journal has a strong ideological bias.

The controversy around non-consensual circumcision of children for non-therapeutic reasons is not exclusive to the men's rights movement

Correct, and sources that are to do with circumcision rather than explicitly relating it to MRM, constitute a novel synthesis. Additionally there are problems with the sources, such as:

• Not specific to MRM but written by a member of the National Coalition for Men, not a neutral observer: J. Steven Svoboda, Robert S. Van Howe, James C. Dwyer, Informed Consent for Neonatal Circumcision: An Ethical and Legal Conundrum. 17 J Contemp Health Law & Policy 61 (2000).
• Polemical on activist website: Povenmire, R. (1998–1999). "Do Parents Have the Legal Authority to Consent to the Surgical Amputation of Normal, Healthy Tissue From Their Infant Children?: The Practice of Circumcision in the United States". Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law. 7 (1): 87–123. PMID 16526136. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
• Not specific to MRM but written by a member of the National Coalition for Men, not a neutral observer: Peter W. Adler. Is Circumcision Legal? 16(3) Richmond J. L. & Pub. Int. 439 (2013).

And so on. I'm sympathetic tot he idea that infant circumcision is unethical but in context this text is a non-sequitur and covered with much greater nuance at the linked article (which includes, for example, the dissenting opinions, which clearly prevail as the practice is still legal).

The evidence that this is an MRM issue is thin and the on-topic part of the removed text is exactly one short sentence sourced to a fringe journal, followed by a one-sided presentation of a complex issue drawn from cherry-picked sources. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources are clearly pertinent to the MRM and many of them reference men's rights. The National Coalition for Men is arguably part of the MRM. This article isn't about the prevailing opinion, it's about the viewpoints of the men's rights movement Prcc27🎃 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the argument does not need to be entirely two sided (aside from briefly mentioning that there are dissenting views, as was done in the text that is being disputed), this article is on the views of the MRM, and circumcision is a huge part of that, to argue otherwise is to be either ignorant of the MRM, or downright disingenuous.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't reasonably expect to remove all sources from activists do you? Honestly, the article is on the views of those activists. Should we also remove all of the sources to activists on the feminism article? In any case you say "Polemical on activist website" to a source that was published in the "Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law" which unless I'm much mistaken, isn't an activist site (and actually is largely associated with feminism). The National Coalition for Men is definitely part of the MRM, and their views are not required to be 'neutral' to be represented here. There are dozens more sources out there to use, simply do a quick google search, but these sources are fine anyway. Restore the section.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your arguments against low impact factors I've heard before, and you use this argument all the time to throw out sources you don't like. The fact is, the use of Impact factor to judge the quality of a work is disputed anyway, and the impact factor of the journal in question is 0.865, and at 68 out of 138, it is pretty middle-of-the-road and seems totally fine. It might be different if it was 5th out of 138. Certainly there is no justification to throw out the source, and I'm getting a little sick of hearing you argue against middle ground journals in this way.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  21:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The error is as follows: "Some MRMs say circumcision is a men's rights issue (source) some MRAs writing in the International Journal of Pretending Men's Rights Studies Are A Thing. LOOK! LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE OF HOW HORRIBLE IT IS! LOOK! There, we told you it's a MR issue.

This article is quite shitty enough without going off down endless rabbit holes like this. Guy (Help!) 22:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

We can give due weight to MRAs that view circumcision as a men's issue and due weight to those that don't (although I'm not sure if there are any reliable sources on MRAs that argue circumcision isn't a men's rights issue). We have reliable sources that prove that some MRAs view it as a men's issue and therefore it should be included. You seem to not won't it included simply because you don't like it. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we can give due weight to it when we have reliable independent sources showing what that weight it. Right now we have one marginally reliable source that is not independent. Guy (Help!) 00:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

nice work trying to maintain a neutral point of view (sarcasm)... Jesus, try to keep your bias under control. Sources are as unbiased as they are going to be, and if I don't hear some kind of reasonable argument as to why this material is innapropriate, I am going to restore the section later this evening. As it is all we have here is one rather pedantic editor with a clear POV to push.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  06:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is a pretty clear cut inclusion IMO. Arkon (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't think the statement is particularly controversial even if sourcing is a bit weak. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But it is controversial, precisely because the sourcing is weak. Bring stornger sourcing and the problem goes away. Unless, of course, you don't have stronger sourcing in which case exclusion is 100% right. Guy (Help!) 20:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad you restored it. Question: In other articles there is a separate criticism section, why is there not one here? Why is each statement and position followed immediately by criticism? Since every criticism I've read is sourced to a feminist author, would it not make more sense to have a single feminist objections section or a feminist criticism section? Sirtheoir (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)sirtheoir

See WP:Criticism for guidelines on "criticism" sections. PearlSt82 (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I’ll look at it, thanks but skimming through the article on Feminism what I see are discussions about various feminist’s point of view; the one exception is two sentences at the end of the Science section. The non-feminist POV objections are in a separate section where Camille Paglia, Christina Hoff Sommers, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Lisa Lucile Owens[231] and Daphne Patai are listed, followed by a brief three sentence description of their POVs. Certainly, if the POV on the Feminism article was handled the same way as the Men’s Rights Movement article page, the POVs these authors, various male authors (Warren Ferrall, Paul Nathanson come to mind), and men’s rights commentators would be throughout the Feminism page? Or the Men’s Rights Movement article should have a partial list of feminist authors followed by a brief description of their POV at the end of the article? At first blush it appears that, at least, the Wikipedia editors’ lack a rigorous knowledge of these authors, and therefore may have shallow understanding of their ideas which appear to be part of the basis or at least supporting arguments to the Men’s Right Movement? Not that I’m much better, I’ll have to read these authors and the Wikipedia rules. Sirtheoir (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC) sirtheoir

I'm removing the section again as I have checked the references and very few of them (only 1, as far as I can tell) even mention's the men's rights movement. That makes the entire section a clear-cut violation of WP:SYNTH. If you want a section on circumcision, find some (reliable) refs that actually frame the issue as a "men's rights" issue. Because the refs cited here don't. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Read this. The National Coalition for Men are clearly a men's rights organisation, and that places them as part of the mens rights movement. To be clear, many groups that are part of the mens rights movement tend to avoid the moniker directly, as there is a social stigma against it. With these sources being clearly demonstrated as sources from mens right's advocates, I don't see how this section violates WP:SYNTH. In any case, if you want some sources that say that circumcision is a MR issue, see [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And if you want sources from MR activists about the subject, see [6], [7], [8], and also from the National Coalition for Men [9]*****. Arguing that this isn't a MRM issue is laughable.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I wholehearted agree with UTC's statement about the National Coalition for Men, his desire to include circumcision as a MR issue, and his links. I must say I'm impressed with the speed and completeness of his response!Sirtheoir (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not buying the WP:SYNTH argument because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Encyclopedia articles are less about the name of the article itself and more about a topic or concept. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:28, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Me either, this seems like a pedantic excuse to remove the section. I'm not going to argue that the section is written as well as it can be, or that the sources shouldn't be shuffled around a bit. Mainly the fact that the NCfM sources are used in the sentence where it says that that it "is not exclusive to the MRM". As Guy has pointed out, they are written by members of the NCfM, and can therefore be construed as being part of the MRM (opposite to what is written in that sentence). However, to argue that the whole thing is synth is and should be bathwatered is idiotic to the extreme.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:03, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I've alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Note that i have restored the section, but moved a couple of the references and added a couple of others to help resolve this issue. This certainly isn't a situation to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as it is clear that this is a MRM issue. Rather, the section needs to be improved and expanded.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  23:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

But you didn't fix the problem. There are no good sources tying this to MRM, and to use the balance of the sources amounts to WP:SYN. How about bringing new, high quality, reliable independent sources showing this to be a MRM issue? Guy (Help!) 01:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

You clearly are not going to be happy until I hand you an article published in Nature with the title "circumcision is a men's rights issue". I've clearly demonstrated that circumcision is a men's rights issue above, (and I have just added a ton of sources directly tying the MRM to circumcision). But you would rather just be pedantic an WP:BATHWATER the whole section? This isn't SYNTH, not even close. You are not going to call any sources that mention the men's rights movement 'good sources' because of the nature of the men's rights movement, high profile sources tend to avoid hot button issues like this. Specifically, anti circumcision activists tend to avoid the term 'men's rights', even if those same activists are otherwise involved in mens right's organisations.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:15, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• until someone brings good sources this cannot come in. Jytdog (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted another attempt to add this - Insertcleverphrase, if you're going to keep trying to add this please remove sources that don't mention and have nothing to do with the MRM from your proposed edit. They don't support the content you're trying to add, and it would be misleading to include them. And please avoid blogs, breitbart, etc - that kind of stuff would get shot down at RSN before you could count to ten. A more helpful approach would be to make a list of what you think are the best sources that you can find on circumcision and the MRM here, and we'll see what kind of treatment they might warrant in the article. You're not going to be able to edit-war the section in as written, we're much better off starting fresh. Fyddlestix (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

There are already references to Breitbart in the article, so yeah you can see how I'd be confused. As for the other sources, perhaps you should remove the ones you object to, rather than reverting the entire change? Specifically, which of the following references do you disagree with, and for what reason?

I can't really establish which references you disagree with unless you tell me, as I am not a mindreader, and you removed all of the references at once instead of simply removing the individual references you feel are inappropriate. I'm trying to resolve this issue, and am the only one actively trying to find sources here. I could use some cooperation rather than simply automatic smash down of the undo button.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to point out that a Men's rights organisation's website is definitely a reliable source for "Some men's rights activists see circumcision..." Same for men's right's organisation blogs, etc. See WP:BIASED.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Addressing the sources: Angelucci is primary, unreliable and not independent; Good Men Project is primary, unreliable and not independent; Valeii is primary, unreliable and really not independent either; Deacon is unreliable because Breitbart; Meyers looks on the face of it to be OK (marginal on reliability but whatevs) but more in a second; Heist is primary, unreliable and not independent; Allen is addressed above and seems to be the WP:COATRACKon which you're trying to hang the entire thing; Svoboda is also discussed above, a known activist and does not establish the link between circumcision and MRA; Adler ditto.

The one marginally reliable source is the GQ article. This actually says "The aura of victimhood adopted by MRAs extends to criticising the extent of coverage of female genital mutilation at the expense of discussing male circumcision" - this is absolutely not a substantiation of circumcision as an MRA issue, instead it's pointing out the dramatically inappropriate false equivalency of comparing circumcision with FGM. If we wanted to include a sentence saying that MRAs build a false sense of victimhood by drawing false paralleles between circumcision and FGM then this would be an acceptable source, but we'd need another to establish significance. As a source for the text you're trying to add? Not even close.

So, were you, at some point, intending to bring new, high quality sources that give some evidence that this is a significant MRA issue, or are you simply going to keep trying to crowbar the same crappy paper with an ever larger snowstorm of the same old irrelevant or unreliable links? There is discussion of the MRM in high profile sources, yet all you can offer for this is dross. I question by now whether it is ever going to be possible to come up with a source that is actually compelling. Guy (Help!) 12:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Question, doesn't WP:BIASED allow us to use sources such as Angelucci, and Good Men Project specifically for the assertion that "Some men's rights activists have views X..."? In this particular case these sources would not be required to have independence or be secondary. Sourcing always depends on the context, and the context of this statement makes a case for pretty lenient sourcing. Please correct me if wrong. You accuse me of coat racking but Allen is perfectly clear as being an appropriate link here "Likewise, another faction of the men's rights movement might include intactivists, which is broadly considered to be an anticirumcision movement that began in the early 1980s". In any case, finding the sources is the issue here, surely you agree that the sources above, and in my earlier comment clearly show that circumcision IS a mens rights issue and we should be working together to make a decent section for it in the article, one way or another? My goal isn't to 'crowbar' anything, I think it is rather clear that circumcision is a men's rights issue (as pretty much every men's rights organisation says so) and therefore should be represented as such in the article, the only issue right now is finding sources that will satisfy you. This is made difficult by the fact that when advocating for anti-circumcision, men's rights activists tend to avoid the term 'men's rights' due to it's inflammatory connotations, and sources that link the two are generally not published in high quality sources in an attempt to avoid bad publicity.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:48, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED would allow us to use some of these sources in describing a person's views n an article about that person, but it does work here because the question is significance and synthesis. There are no independent sources clarifying the significance of this view, and the one source we have that links the issues, does so in a way that makes it plain the actual content is a POV spin on the issue. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:BIASED is more permissive than that, it isn't just used for articles about the source's subject. Dispite plenty of clear evidence that circumcision is a genuine men's rights issue, you'd rather be pedantic and remove the whole section because we can't find a perfect source and can only find sources that are 'OK'. I guess I understand why some people get annoyed with deletionists now. I'm out mate, I know some other articles where I can spend my time more constructively.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

JzG After scouring the internet for sources, I managed to find at least two more high quality ones, one from Paper (magazine) [10], and another from the International Business Times [11]. I also rewrote the upper section to help address any issues by clearly following the language of the sources. Hopefully this can resolve the issue without having to argue over WP:BIASED or the other sources. Combined with GQ and other sources, the sourcing here now seems more than robust enough to establish that circumcision is a men's rights issue.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  13:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, good point about the source pointing out the false equivalence. I suggest that if our MRM article ever contains a section about circumcIsion, that our text should tell the reader how little regard is given the issue by most observers. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

If anyone would like to do a bunch of reading: this is probably a really good place to start. Arkon (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The first result is a letter to the editor, neither of the next two even mentions men's rights. I think this is the search you want - note that it only returns 5 results. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

So very helpful and not snarky at all! P.S. Did you read any of them? Arkon (talk) 20:22, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Apologies if I came off as snarky - yes I did read them:

• This does not appear to be a RS.
• This seems like a passing mention of the MRM, there's not much there to hang a discussion of the issue in this article on.
• The Kennedy source does not discuss men's rights at all (the words only appear in the subtitle of one of the works cited - otherwise there's no mention of the MRM in her article).
• I read the Svodoba source carefully - he does discuss the MRM, but seemingly only to suggest that intactivists and men's rights activists face a similar kind of resistance (ie, "striving to affirm the need for equal treatment of a sex that is seen as historically dominant and currently privileged in many or most aspects of human life" makes a lot of people uncomfortable).
• The Allan source seems uncertain about the relationship between intactivists and the MRM: he states that "another faction of the men’s rights movement might include 'intactivists'" and suggests that "a great deal of work needs to be done in untangling the complexity of circumcision, particularly in light of men’s rights activism." He also suggests that there's seems to be a latent anti-semitism in the places where the MRM and intactivist movement do intersect - are you sure you want that in this article?

All in all I'm not seeing anything that's detailed, in-depth and weight-y enough to justify (and support) a whole section of this article on circumcision. I'm looking to see what else is out there, will let you know if anything particularly useful turns up. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

" are you sure you want that in this article? " Sure, if that's what has been written, why not? Carptrash (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Even if there's only enough reliable sources for use to write one sentence on circumcision we should include it in the article (probably the health section). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

First, I want to see evidence that this is considered significant by independent commentators. The only independent commentator cited to date does not actually support even the one sentence that was not blatant WP:SYN, rather, it says that MRAs push false equivalence between circumcision and FGM. That is a very different sentence to the one I think you want to include. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is POV "non-consensual circumcision". The parents give consent just like they give consent for appendectomies and other procedures. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This article is about the POV of the MRM. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Rape as male perpetrator only

In the issues section, it lists rape, but suggests that the men's rights issues with rape are false accusations (which is true), marital rape being illegal (of which I have seen no evidence, and all links seem to come from feminist sources, but I digress). There is, however, no mention of the main men's rights issue related to rape, namely that in most countries, rape is defined as a crime only a man can commit, only a woman can be a victim of, or both.

I suggest adding a subsection about lack of legal recognition of male victims and female perpetrators. --Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have heard this argument before, so it might be something that needs to be incorporated. I know that until recently the FBI had a similar definition to that above and that's why statistics did not list male victims as 'rape victims'. As for state law and other countries, I have no idea. As with anything though, we must reflect the sources. The first thing I can suggest is to find some high quality sources that support the inclusion of a section like this, post them here and we can get cracking. If we can't find anything solid enough then it won't fly.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  20:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have some sources, both for this being an issue MRAs care about, and that many countries don't have gender equal rape laws.

(MRAs care)

https://j4mb.wordpress.com/2016/09/24/petition-amend-exclusionary-rape-law-that-excludes-woman-from-committing-rape/

https://legalfighter.wordpress.com/2013/03/12/mens-rights-groups-view-on-newly-proposed-rape-law-importance-of-gender-neutrality/

(Laws not gender equal)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2250448 (India)

https://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/idn/indonesian_penal_code_html/I.1_Criminal_Code.pdf (indonesia)

http://www.dawn.com/news/1167324 (Pakistan)

http://www.nigeria-law.org/Criminal%20Code%20Act-PartV.htm (Nigeria)

http://blogs.dw.com/womentalkonline/2013/12/04/the-legal-framework-of-bangladeshs-rape-law/ (Bangladesh)

http://www.impowr.org/content/current-legal-framework-rape-and-sexual-assault-japan (Japan)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/1 (UK)

Any feedback on these sources would be helpful.

--Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

None of these appears to pass our test for reliability. Guy (Help!) 23:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that that may be an issue for the ones in the MRAs care section, I'm not sure how to show that without linking to websites showing MRAs talking about it. I also have a voice for men links but they would need to be whitelisted. As for the laws themselves, three are links to the legislation itself(indonesia, nigeria and uk), and one contains a link to the legislation (pakistan). You can't get more reliable than the word of the law. Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

You need to understand WP:SYN. Guy (Help!) 00:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that's relevant. If the issue is showing that these MRAs care about rape definitions, therefor the MRM in general does, how are you meant to show that the MRM cares about it other than by examples?. If the issue is with the law section, how is linking to laws, when talking about laws, original research? Would I need to find a comparative law study showing how male rape is treated legally in different countries, or am I missing something? Men's Rights Edinburgh (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think what Guy wants is an independent source like 'the guardian' or the 'new your times' or a scholarly journal that has commented on this issue, I hope that clarifies things. Refs to laws specifically won't apply unless we have a source that talks about these kinds of laws in regards to how the MRM views them, as otherwise they are WP:SYNTHESIS.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

A good starting point would be the article on Rape_of_males#International_law. However, there would have to be some source(s) that link these sorts of laws with the Men's right's movement.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I would also suggest checking out some of these books.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  04:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Why would self-sourced statements about what MRAs think are mens' issues not pass the test for RS? Thw Wiki guideline for Verifiability explicitly states that "Self-published /.../ sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ...". So there's no need for having any second or third party litterature connecting an issue with the MRM as long as there is an MRM site declaring that they consider issue X to be a MRM issue; the unequivocal "Verifiability" policy is all the backing required. T 85.166.160.7 (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)