Talk:Men's rights movement/Archive 7

sentencing disparities (again)
Although this is discussed earlier on this talk page, I'm starting another section with my objections because the previous one is kind of cluttered (and a new section at the end of talk will ensure all interested parties see it.) To be clear, I'm not currently talking about the Carol Liu stuff (although that stuff is also hugely problematic,) just the actual sentencing disparities stuff. (Of course, this same problem is present in much of the content in this article.)

Currently, the section has four sources. The first source does not discuss the issue of men's rights, explicitly disclaims its reliability, and is used to support synthesis. (Without a reliable source saying so, we don't get to suggest that a fact is meaningful.) The second source, although it certainly discusses sentencing disparities and looks reliable to me, does not discuss them as a concern about men's rights; it only observes that they exist. The third source specifies that it is a working paper which means that it is not peer reviewed and has an unknown level of editorial insight; it fails WP:RS. The fourth source, although it's hosted on a .gov domain and may be reliable, literally does not specify what it is or where it is from, so it is not apparent that it has the editorial oversight required to be a WP:RS. The fourth source also, again, doesn't talk about the issue as a men's rights issue explicitly. Some of the sources in this section note that differences exist, but none of them talk about them as a men's rights issue. Selectively using sources to advance a conclusion not present in any of those sources is synthesis, and isn't appropriate in a Wikipedia article. To quote WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

I'll be waiting 24 hours before making any changes to the article, so that hopefully someone can either explain why I am wrong that this is synthesis, or rewrite the section to be acceptable. Kevin (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the section on Sentencing disparities fails to be sourced. While it might be relevent for an article on Men's Rights Activism, it is not at all clearly related to anything but gender disparity in sentencing, which should be properly located in Criminal sentencing in the United States. Hipocrite (talk) 16:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kevin, this is an example of why there has been a backlash against both Wikipedia and yourself in particular regarding this issue.
 * This is your position: "It's demonstrably true that men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime in USA at the very least(and presumably other countries). It's also demonstrably true that in USA (and presumably other places) everyone has the right to equal treatment under the law, and there is explicit writing that specifically outlaws inequal sentencing.
 * However, we must not mention this in the wikipedia page about men's rights. Why? Because we have not found an academic / mainstream source that says 'Men are given longer sentences than women for the same crime, the rights of men are infringed upon due to this phenomenon.'"
 * You may be technically correct that the Wikipedia policies support your deletion of the sentencing disparity section. However, can you actually tell me with a straight face that Wikipedia is improved if someone comes to the men's rights page wanting to learn more and DOES NOT learn that men are given harsher sentences than women for the same crime?
 * Really? Can you honestly tell me that? That this article, and Wikipedia as a whole, is better off if that information is not included? As you must know, the rules are irrelevant - the only thing that's relevant is making a better encyclopedia. So please explain me to me how it is better to remove the information that men are sentenced more harshly than women in the article about men's rights? Celdaz (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Second warning, Celdaz: either be more civil and less dismissive of your fellow editors' views, or you may be facing sanctions. Tone down the rhetoric, please. KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

To you, this is a completely obvious issue. To some, it's a completely obvious issue that Obama is a Muslim or that Bush is an idiot or that there's a secular conspiracy to destroy Christian values in America or that there's a Christian conspiracy to destroy secular values in America. Even if you do think that this is a completely obvious issue, I 100% guarantee you that there are people who edit Wikipedia who think things are completely obvious that you don't agree with. Banning original research allows us to focus on creating an encyclopedia that is (for well-written articles) no more insane about any given subject than the balance of reliable published sources that deal with that topic are. It allows editors with different personal views on a topic to collaboratively create high quality encyclopedic articles.

Yes, sometimes reliable published sources are biased or are flat out incorrect. Yes, there are some articles that I think would be more accurate if I could introduce original research to them. It's perfectly possible that there are articles that would be improved if we didn't have to use already published reliable sources. We have decided as a community that the benefits presented by requiring sourcing in this fashion far outweigh these problems. We have decided as a community that these represent an acceptable loss. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a Wiki that allows original research or adopts a particular world view, but it's simply not Wikipedia. Some that do so exist and are successful to varying degrees - conservapedia, rationalwiki, etc. Since Mediawiki is open source, you could even go create an MRA-wiki. Kevin (talk) 01:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * SYNTH is not a policy in itself, it is a part of NOR, and Compiling facts and information  is not original research. Furthermore, it is your burden to show that an original thesis is produced . Furthermore, Synth is not Obvious--Kratch (talk) 02:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This talk page is not intended for finding loopholes or contradictions in wikipedia editing guidelines. To include a subject in the article, a reliable source should be found which discusses that subject explicitly in the context of "men's rights". Otherwise the material is just original research and synthesis, essentially a personal essay. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And what defines "discussing a subject explicitly in the context of men's rights" mean? Does an acknowledgment that a policy is a constitutional violation because it discriminates against men not count? Does a study (presuming it's an acceptable source) that acknowledges that the law is not being applied equally based on gender not count? And why does my siting multiple relevant policies in order to defend the retaining of content count as "finding loopholes" rather that offering reasonable counterpoints? --Kratch (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably that the words "men's rights" should appear explicitly in the text. The same method would be used for civil and political rights. A search on google scholar or google books for "civil rights" gives lots of good sources. The same applies to racial discrimination. Mathsci (talk) 03:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I would argue that such an interpretation ("Must have the words men's rights in it") is overly stringent. SYNTH does not say a thesis can not be proposed, it just says a thesis must not be original(And I'd argue that a thesis that men's rights are a risk of being violated based on sourcing an article that says there is a policy the risks a constitutional violation for discrimination, and that that discrimination is against men, is not an original thesis). Furthermore, Policy says an obvious conclusion is not SYNTH (to which I would argue, stating a law, and then sourcing research that demonstrates that law is not being followed for a specific gender, fit under an obvious conclusion. An example of what is not SYNTH describes a source providing the size of the sun, a source providing the size of the moon, and then a conclusion that the sun is bigger than the moon (despite the fact nether source references the other celestial body). I would argue that the example provided for NOT SYNTH is very much the same as the situation described here).
 * I still have concerns about my arguments being referred to as "finding loopholes" and being told this talk page is not for such discussions when the original editor specifically asked for reasons why these paragraphs should NOT be considered SYNTH, which is precisely what I did?--Kratch (talk) 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC) EDIT cleaned up wording slightly--Kratch (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not an original thesis, then you can surely find another reliable source that makes the argument that the evidence presented in this set of studies shows that men's rights are being violated. Claiming that such a conclusion is so obvious as to be completely apparent to anyone reading both sources is a really confusing argument to make when you have multiple people disagreeing with you that the conclusion is obvious. To claim that the suggestion is so obvious as to be unpublishable makes no sense at all. I'm not sure you read the burden point that you tried to link, but here's a quote from it: "The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable."  I've done this already in this section, and will do it again: the sources that have been used support the idea that a sentencing disparity exists, they don't say what the cause is, and they don't claim that it's a men's rights issue. The section improperly synthesizes them, to assert that a sentencing disparity exists (which is in the sources,) is unjustifiable on the basis of the other facts of the case (which is suggested as one of several possibilities by a source) and that that unjustifiable disparity infringes on the rights of men (which is not in any of the sources.)  You've been unable to show that reading is unreasonable.


 * I am removing this section, because I believe it is clearly synthesis, most other editors on this page who have made relevant arguments (slp, hipocrite, mathsci) have agreed that this is synthesis, and many other editors have expressed concerns on this page about the general excess of synthesis currently in the article. If you genuinely believe I am wrong, you should feel free to go ask for a second opinion at a relevant noticeboard. (And please note that generally the burden of proving content belongs in an article belongs to those trying to put the content there, so please don't restore the section without, say, having gotten consensus at WP:NOR/N that it is appropriate.  (Consensus here that the argument is not synthetic would also work to restore it of course, but in all seriousness I don't think you can do that, so if you really do believe this isn't OR you would be better off asking at NORN.)) Kevin (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, you said you would delete the section unless someone could explain why you were wrong about it being SYNTH. I did that, and while I may not have convinced you, I did provide reasons which "should" have been cause to have you postpone deletion until the discussion was completed and a consensus reached. And the issue of sources was no listed in your criteria for stopping your deleting the content, and reasonable time to correct those sources and/or discuss them, should have been given (24 hours in the middle of the work week is not reasonable time for discussion).


 * Secondly, I did read the burden point, and it said that the burden of proof is light, all you needed to do was explain what assertion is made. Please direct me to where you state, precisely, what assertion is made, as opposed to simply stating that AN assertion is made, and leaving it to others to guess your meaning. Because it is incredibly difficult to demonstrate how a non-existent assertion doesn't count as synthesis. Because the only assertion that I have been accused of establishing was that the law and study citations were combined to make an assertion that men not being accorded proper equal sentencing is an issue of rights as it relates to men... To which I assert that is an obvious conclusion. You also claim that it's not obvious, because the paragraph is being challenged. But it isn't being challenged because the conclusion isn't obvious, it is being challenged (to this point, anyways) because the sources don't specifically make use of the words that have been deemed "required".--Kratch (talk) 02:03, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To quote myself: "The sources that have been used support the idea that a sentencing disparity exists, they don't say what the cause is, and they don't claim that it's a men's rights issue. The section improperly synthesizes them, to assert that a sentencing disparity exists (which is in the sources,) is unjustifiable on the basis of the other facts of the case (which is suggested as one of several possibilities by a source) and that that unjustifiable disparity infringes on the rights of men (which is not in any of the sources.)" You state that this is so obvious as to not require a source; I disagree with you, as do several other editors here.  The standard is obviousness and not correctness, the fact that multiple editors disagree with you that it is an obvious point seems to be a fairly strong indicator that it's not a point so obvious as to not necessitate a source.  If you would like additional outside opinions, feel free to ask at a relevant noticeboard.  Kevin (talk) 07:41, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The paragraph you deleted does not imply anything about the cause of the disparities, merely that it is happening (which you don't dispute). So that thesis is not presented as part of the paragraph you deleted, there was no SYNTH involved. As to it claiming it is a men's right issue 1: the paragraph never claims it is a men's rights issue, just that it is happening in violation of the law (which is supported by the sources). 2: As you have made abundantly clear, this is not an article about the men's rights movements issues, but of the rights men hold in general. Discussing how those rights are not being upheld (supported by the sources) seems rather relevant. I'd also like to point out that you didn't provide that thesis until 1 minute before you deleted the paragraph. I would argue providing a rule that notes you need to provide something that can be argued, and than your doing so, meets your "unless" clause. Again, as to the "obviousness", it's not how obvious the conclusion is that's in dispute, it is the fact that "men's right"s, those words specifically, are not included in the source, that has caused certain editors to object to the content. How obvious a conclusion is depends on what the conclusion being discussed is, and the fact this is relevant to the rights that men are granted is a conclusion that IS obvious. You haven't objected to that conclusion, you've objected to it being assumed it is a men's rights issue, which is a conclusion never implied in what you deleted (I'll acknowledge it was implied in the "the erosion of men's rights" section title you deleted much earlier, a title who's removal I did not object to because you were correct (erosion at the least WAS a very loaded word), but that conclusion was never implied in the content of the paragraph you just deleted), so it isn't a matter of obvious or not, as that conclusion does not exist to be defended.--Kratch (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kratch, having the information here on the page is claiming that sentence discrepancy is a men's rights issue, by its very presence. We simply can't include things such because it is obvious to individual editors - and as Jimbo says "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts".  Surely you can see the problem. Let's say that I come here and argue that it is a infringement of men's rights that they have to pay more for shoes because their feet are bigger.  It's proveable that men's feet are typically bigger than women's.  People should be treated equally, and it isn't fair that men should be penalized for something they can't control.  It's obvious to me that this is a men's right issue, so I should be allowed to include it, right?  Well, the answer is "no" I shouldn't,  because nobody else but me has made this point (I'm guessing!!!), and I am trying to use WP to make my argument.  We need external sources that make the claim that this is a men's rights issue or this article will be a free for all.  If it is really a men's rights issue it will be possible to find sources.  It really isn't that difficult to find sources to make the key points about men's rights issues.  I don't have time to take this particular topic on, but honestly the time spent arguing about this would be better spent finding reliable sources about men's rights issues.  They are out there, quite a lot of them. --Slp1 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a men's rights "issue", just relevant to men's rights. And yes, we can include things when they are obvious . --Kratch (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As SLP said.. the mere inclusion of a section on this page claims that whatever is discussed in that section is a men's rights issue. A section that does not deal with a men's rights issue doesn't belong on this page in the first place. So, take your pick: it should be deleted because it's irrelevant, or it should be deleted because it's unsupported synthesis. Kevin (talk) 21:56, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the very inclusion of a section in this page indicates it is relevant to men's right's. THAT is the conclusion that is made by the deleted pargraph. That is the conclusion that is obvious. And that conclusion has yet to be challenged. It is the conclusion of it being an "issue" that you have all been challenging. Whether it is an issue or not was nether suggested in the paragraph you deleted, nor is it required in order to be on this page, as this page is not restricted to the issues regarding men's rights. If you see in that paragraph a claim that it is an issue of men's rights, that is a conclusion you have come to of your own, perhaps, because it is such an obvious conclusion, but it was YOUR conclusion to make, not something that paragraph suggested. THAT's why I'm not jumping through your hoops. Doesn't matter that you set a clause to stop you from deleting the content. Doesn't matter that I met that clause and gave reasoning (at least enough for discussion to ensue), Doesn't matter that this page is under probation, it's your page, you'll do what you want--Kratch (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to make it any clearer. I do not agree that that conclusion is obvious.  Multiple other editors disagree that that conclusion is obvious.  I have told you why the material as it stands is inappropriate, and multiple other people have agreed.  I have even told you where you can go to get additional outside opinions if you disagree with us.


 * As you mentioned: this page is under probation. The probation includes an explicit mandate to "avoid discussing other editors, discuss the article instead." You are aware of this.  Please stop making posts like your last post.  If you do not, I will be asking an uninvolved administrator to sanction your behavior under the terms of the article probation. Kevin (talk) 03:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * And how do you respond to the sources I found here? NCFM talks about sentencing disparities in specific relation to discrimination against men: http://ncfm.org/2011/04/issues/criminal-sentencing/    As does this site, which explicitly discusses "gender discrimination"" http://law.jrank.org/pages/2051/Sentencing-Disparity-Studies-documenting-illegitimate-disparities.html Celdaz (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To deal with the last link first: please go read WP:RS. Some random website that gives no indication of they are, does not attribute an author, has no indication of editorial oversight, and has no established reputation is not a reliable source for anything, ever, in any context.  For the second: I think you have missed that I have not said that a sentencing disparity section doesn't belong in this article.  All I've said is that the current one was unacceptably synthetic. The NCFM link is a perfectly acceptable primary source for saying that the NCFM considers it a men's rights issue. When the page move discussion closes and this becomes a page about men's rights activism, then a mention of it will totally belong in the article.  An example of what such a mention might look like: "The National Coalition for Men, the United States' largest men's rights organization, considers disparities in sentencing between genders a men's rights issue, pointing to research showing that men in the United States receive higher sentences than women do for the same crime, even when all known mitigating factors are accounted for."  (I wouldn't consider it particularly appropriate to use the NCFM link to support a section in the current article, since it won't be a secondary source RS by our standards.  But it'd be perfectly appropriate in an article about MRA's - which is one reason why I want the move.) Saying "this section is currently poorly sourced unacceptable original research" is completely different from saying "this section can never be in the article."  Kevin (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Kevin, the examples you gave are in fact irrelevant, and here is why. All your examples are either demonstrably false, a subjective matter of opinion (Bush's intelligence), or lack evidence to prove them true (conspiracies). Therefore, whether they are "obvious issues" is irrelevant - they must be excluded from Wikipedia for one of those three (very significant) reasons.
 * Sentencing disparities, on the other hand, are none of those three. They are demonstrably true and not a matter of opinion. The right to equal treatment under the law is likewise demonstrably true and not a matter of opinion (that is, the existence of such right as written under US law is not a question of opinion). That is why your explanation fails.
 * Now, up until this writing I believed that a strict adherence to Wikipedia policy dictated that sentencing disparity be excluded. However, after reading Kratch's elaboration and citation of further rules, I see that in fact, the rules clearly allow the section to remain. The analogy of the sun and the moon seem to be analogous to sentencing disparities and equal treatment under the law.
 * "Source 1 says the Sun is this big. Source 2 says the moon is this big. Therefore the Sun is bigger." = OK under the rules.
 * "Source 1 says we have the right to equal sentencing. Source 2 says men are given harsher sentences. Therefore men's rights are being violated." = OK under the rules. Celdaz (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's best to stick with the policy pages than delving around on essay pages. The latter are the opinions of one or more editors, and don't have consensus of the community, unlike the policy pages. The actual OR policy says:  "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." If neither of source 1(A) nor source 2(B)  state "Therefore men's rights are being violated" the article cannot say it or imply it.  Your sun and moon analogy is of a different form; I am sure a logician can explain clearly and concisely why, but even from lay point of view they are not equivalent. It is to do with "bigness" being the predicate position in both propositions and forming the conclusion too.  --Slp1 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Neither source A nor B specifically say "men's rights are being violated", correct. But source A says that "everyone (by definition including men) has the right to equal sentencing" and source B says "we have proved that men don't receive equal sentencing." The rules of logic clearly indicate that the conclusion "men's rights are therefore being violated" is just as inevitable and reasonable as "the sun is bigger". I really do not see see how this arguing about technicalities and removing valid information helps make a better article - Kevin's explanation about "obvious issues" above was a failure as I explained previously. Celdaz (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you would have WP make an exception to our policies for this edit and this page, and we simply can't do it. If you'd like to change the policy, then the place is the talkpage of the WP:OR page, not here. It's a question of what WP's role and purpose is, and it simply isn't the place to make new arguments and draw new conclusions.  If nobody but men's rights activists have noted this as a violation of "men's rights" then WP won't be the first place to do so.  --Slp1 (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See WP:CALC for why we can say "2 (the volume of the moon) is less than 3 (the volume of the sun)," but not "It is only fair for men to have the right to an abortion." Hipocrite (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All kinds of conspiracy theorists believe that what they believe in is so well supported by the available evidence as to be obvious. For instance, these guys believe that legal action taken against them is invalid because it's taken against JOHN Q SMITH (who they believe is a fictitious entity) and not John Q Smith.  To be clear, I don't think MRA's are conspiracy theorists, but I do believe that the argument "But it's so obvious when you look at these sources that it should be included in Wikipedia without a reliable source having stated it" is not an argument that we can ever accept for claims of this nature partly because it's so hard to define a line.  The tax conspiracy guys believe that the straight facts prove their point 100% obviously beyond any reasonable doubt, and I suspect that you'd look at their claims and think they are crazy.  Requiring reliable sources for all arguments stops us from having to draw a line.


 * Anyway, there's another significant problem: including a section that has not being discussed in reliable sources also isn't something that we do. Even if this whole section wasn't unacceptable synthesis (and it is), Wikipedia articles are supposed to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint." Also please note, I editconflicted with everyone who has replied recently, so this whole reply was written before the new replies. Kevin (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I still hold the position that this pedantry is a net harm to the article and that if the sentencing disparity section is removed, the article will be worse off. That said, the NCFM talks about sentencing disparities in specific relation to discrimination against men: http://ncfm.org/2011/04/issues/criminal-sentencing/


 * As does this site, which explicitly discusses "gender discrimination"" http://law.jrank.org/pages/2051/Sentencing-Disparity-Studies-documenting-illegitimate-disparities.html Celdaz (talk) 00:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just butting in here - Celdaz and Kratch what is being pointed out to you is that sources themselves must treat sentencing disparity within the context of men's rights. Nobody is arguing whether or not sentencing disparity exists just that third party reliable source have not as yet treated this in a way that gives wikipedia a reason to mention here on the men's rights page. And as a point of order neither of your sources even mention the term 'men's rights' (even if it mention's gender discrimination it does not examine the issues wrt men's rights and thus using it to do so is a synthesis). Unless a source frames itself as being about men's rights issues using it to talk about that is originl resaerch and while that could make a good blog post, news article or book it is not appropriate for a wikipedia article. Continued arguentation about it is a dead-end and is coming to the point of tendentiousness-- Cailil  talk 01:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

New editors may be expected
The Redditors in Men's rights have noted the unprotection of this page. If we have new editors, please remember to start with a welcome message, and don't bite the newcomers. Thanks all for helping keep this page civil, and my job easier. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Should we perhaps make a custom welcome message for this topic with an outline of the relevant policy or would that be an AGF violation? Also, evidently we're all feminists.   N o f o rmation  Talk  19:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Use standard templates; if the first edits are contrary to policy we have welcome templates to cover that. Look on WP:WT under Specialized messages if you don't feel that {{subst:welcome}} will cover it. I don't see that anything other than {{subst:Welcomelaws}}, {{subst:welcomenpov}} or {{subst:Welcomeunsourced}} will be needed. KillerChihuahua ?!? 19:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello! I am a new editor here. I just voted in the move thingy and it was very exciting. How many votes do we need to win? Do the women have to get permission before they can vote? This biting stuff. Kinda seems canibalistic, reminds me of vampirism. Gross. Anyway, could someone please tell me how do i get one of those neat "welcome" templates? – Lionel (talk) 21:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol KillerChihuahua ?!? 22:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

domestic violence
As it stands right now, this section is really awful. It says, as uncaveated fact, "In many jurisdictions, domestic violence is seen as men assaulting women and female violence is systematically minimized and denied." It does have sources, and there really are reputable sources that do claim this, but it's not at all an uncontroversial claim - although there are definitely reliable sources that support what is current said in the section, there's also very strong support in reliable sources for the exact opposite. The section currently makes no effort what so ever to accurately represent the state of the literature - it consists of cherrypicked sources used to advance a point of view. I don't have time to rewrite the section right now, but I am commenting it out until someone does.

Domestic_violence although not perfect is a hell of a lot better, and will give you some idea of how weird this section as it currently stands is. That page may also be a good place to start getting ideas about how to rewrite this section in an acceptable manner (although with a page move likely happening, it may not be a good idea to do a full rewrite before we figure out the scope of the new page...) Kevin (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you feel that it is missing the other side of the issue, but don't have time to add to it yourself, you could NPOV tag it, but removing it when you admit that it has reputable sources is a bit much. I'll be doing the R in BRD shortly. Arkon (talk) 18:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As it stood, it was a grotesque misrepresentation of the literature. For now, I have simply swapped the content that was in the section with the first paragraph of Domestic_violence. Please feel free to do a further import of content from that page if you think it's warranted, or to revert me if you think that the initial content was more balanced than the new stuff is.  I'm not intending to edit war about it, it's just did a colossally poor job at representing the main POV's present in reliable sources as it was.  (I would've actually done this the first time if it had occurred to me, instead of just blanking it.) Kevin (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I won't be reverting that section again. But you probably shouldn't have either. Arkon (talk) 18:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you think the prior version of it was better, please revert to it - or just let me know and I will selfrevert. I usually would not repeat an edit similar to one that had been rv'ed so soon, but it hadnt occurred to me to import content previously, and it seemed vastly preferable to either other option. If you disagree that its a better option, let me know. Kevin (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The version before was perfectly accurate. Did you read my citations, they were impeccable. The Florida Law Review, Psychological Bulliten, Routledge. Your version uses domestic violence advocates to give an out of context assertions that all claims of equal rates are only because of women's self defense, but that is true at all. As per the extensive discussion about this before "Dobash is not a reliable source. He merely dismisses data that he doesn't like. He presents no evidence. He is notable enough that his criticisms should be mentioned, but certainly not notable enough to simply dismiss the great bulk of the research on this question." How about what a non activist source says? Well, Archer (2000) which has been cited over 1000 times (Google), or more than 680 (per WebOfScience) says It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating an attack (Bland & Om, 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird, 1989, cited in Straus, 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men reported using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988b). This evidence does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women's self-defense. Sources that reliable sources say have a history of misrepresenting issues are not reliable sources for refuting the idea that misrepresentation has gone on. Lifetime domestic violence advocates and feminists are hardly reliable sources because of an obvious COI. Family researchers like Archer or Frieze (who does call her self a feminist) and criminal psychologists like Motz are. I am reinstating my version. extransit (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm bringing the sources here for reference
 * "The denial or trivialization of violence by women against men and the knowledge that women can also be violent imply that what is happening to the male victims of violence needs to be examined."
 * Frieze, Irene (2000). "Violence in close relationships—development of a research area: Comment on Archer (2000)". Psychological Bulletin 126 (5): 681-684.
 * "Despite the wealth and diversity of the sociological research and the consistency of the findings, female violence is not recognized within the extensive legal literature on domestic violence. Instead, the literature consistently suggests that only men commit domestic violence. Either explicitly, or more often implicitly, through the failure to address the subject in any objective manner, female violence is denied, defended and minimized."
 * Kelly, Linda (2003). "Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse: How women batter men and the role of the feminist state". Florida State University Law Review 30: 792-793.
 * "Why does society deny the fact of female violence? This book explores the nature and causes of female violence from the perspectives of psychodynamic theory and forensic psychology."
 * Motz, Anna (2008). The psychology of female violence: Crimes against the body. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-203-93091-6.
 * "selective inattention by both media and reaserachers [make women's] victimization more visible."
 * Straus, M. A., Gelles, R.J., & Steinmetz, S. K. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family. New York: Doubleday/Anchor.
 * extransit (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Dobash is not a reliable source. He merely dismisses data... This is what a Wikipedia editor wrote about a study. Surely you do not believe that this is good enough to dismiss criticisms of the Conflict Tactics Scale? Getting cited is not such a great thing when many of the authors who cite your research do so to criticize your survey tool.
 * As you very well know, Russel P. Dobash is by far not the only researcher who has criticized the CTS. Even the National Institute of Justice has explained that the CTS "may not be appropriate for intimate partner violence research because it does not measure control, coercion, or the motives for conflict tactics; it also leaves out sexual assault and violence by ex-spouses or partners and does not determine who initiated the violence." The CTS does not measure the motivation for violence (a person who acts in self-defense scores one point on the scale just as the person who initiates violence); the CTS does not measure sexual violence (if you push your partner after she/he raped you then you get a point but not your partner); the CTS does not measure control, violence among ex-partners etc.
 * The issue is more complicated than you present it. Straus (the person who invented the CTS) cites studies that say that more women than men report initiating an attack. Other studies found that women are more willing to report their use of violence because "women tend to recognize such behavior as a violation of their socially prescribed gender role and readily confess to their transgression of the norm for their behavior; men, on the other hand, tend to minimize their violence against female partners" and that women tend to underestimate victimization while men tend to overestimate theirs (see Frude, N. (1994). "Marital violence: An interactional perspective. In Male violence (ed by Archer). Routledge Press. London, England; Rouse, L., Breen, R. and Howell, M. (1988). "Abuse in intimate relationships: A comparison of married and dating college students. Journal of interpersonal violence. 3 414-419; Schwartz, M. (1987). "Gender and injury in spousal assault." Sociological forum. 20. 61-75; Ferrante, A. et al (1996). Measuring the extent of domestic violence. Crime Research Center, University of Western Australia. Hawkins Press. Perth, Australia etc.)? Just because Archer defends his research and his methodology does not mean that criticisms of the CTS are "debunked" or something.
 * A domestic violence section that is exclusively based on CTS studies (without even mentioning their limitations) does not accurately represent the current state of literature. To be more precise, CTS studies do not examine domestic violence. They examine domestic violence minus sexual violence minus self-defense minus violence by ex-partners etc. It's a completely different definition of "domestic violence". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, you arguments are somewhat irrelevant as the section does not make an argument for gender symmetry (yet). It just says that women's violence against men is minimized. As for your assertions about the CTS, approximately one hundred studies that have not used the CTS have found the same thing (see Fieberts bibliography). extransit (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The quote you presented (for the third time) makes that argument. "Approximately one hundred studies"... Is that a guess? Thousands of studies have been conducted on domestic violence. Many of them by organizations such as the World Health Organization etc. I do not object to including CTS studies in this article. What I request is that we add a global perspective (most if not all CTS studies are from the United States), criticisms of CTS, large-scale, preferably international studies that include measures of motivation, control, sexual violence etc., and statements on claims of "gender symmetry" by organizations such as the National Institute of Justice.
 * Please also note that CTS studies do not look at domestic violence in a crime context but frame violence in relationships as lovers' quarrels (quote from Straus: "No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I’m going to read some things that you and your (spouse/ partner) might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times ... in the past 12 months you ..." (Straus 1990b, p. 33) The CTS does not frame domestic violence as a crime and therefore a violation of anyone's rights whereas national surveys supported by National Institute of Justice, Center for Disease Control, and Bureau of Justice Statistics are conducted within a safety or crime context (and clearly find more partner abuse by men against women) (again see NIJ source). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that you accuse me of making up numbers, when I actually did not (I counted, earlier back on talk:DV. Fiebert's bibliography has 282 entries. 147 use the CTS, 19 use the CTS2, 126 use other methodologies), and then go on to make up your own "thousands of studies"....
 * I don't understand why you want to keep arguing about the CTS. Aside from the fact that criticism of the CTS is almost all political, aside from the fact that 126 studies that did not use the CTS came to similar conclusions. My version here has nothing in it about prevalence so arguing about prevalence is beside the point. extransit (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I also agree that this section is deeply problematic. I have several concerns about WP:Verifiability, and would like more information.  This section appears sourced but when I look at the sources I can't find the information. Page numbers and links would help.....
 * can you please give a page number in the Motz book to support "In many jurisdictions, domestic violence is seen as men assaulting women and female violence is systematically minimized and denied"? I looked fairly closely and don't see anything.
 * Same thing for "This means that support networks for victims of domestic violence are often only available to women and that in mutually abusive situations only the man may face legal consequences" What is the page number of Cook's Abused Men where this appears? I've also looked for Rosenthal (2006) also cited there.  I can't find the source, and so perhaps you could find a better link or reference. The portion of the text cited there "Even when couples violence is mutual or minor, domestic violence programs typically discourage partner reconciliation" bears little or no relationship to the content it is supposed to source.
 * What is the page number of from the Nathanson and Young book for "It has also been alleged that dishonest information and tactics by activists contibutes to an unjustifiably negative image of men and misandry". I can't find this information as related to domestic violence in particular in the book at present
 * There is also the problem of cherrypicking of information, apparently to push a POV.
 * For example, why is "Men aged 20 to 24 were just as likely to be the victims of domestic violence as women" noted from this source but not "overall women are more likely to be abused in general and to be the victims of stronger physical violence. Across all age ranges, one in four women have been abused compared with one in six men" which comes just after?
 * Finally, there is the major problem of original research, which has been pointed out repeatedly on this page as a criticism of much of the content of this page. Virtually none of these sources make the connection with men's rights. Various bits and bobs seem to have been put together to advocate for a position. Can you point out where these links to men's rights are made in the various sources please?
 * I'm going to wait a while to get the page numbers and clarifications so that I can check some of the sources before removing all or part of this section. Thanks for your help. --Slp1 (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your criticisms are easily addressed.
 * On your first point, as the purpose of Motz's book it to answer the question "Why does society deny the fact of female violence?" and includes discussion of domestic violence I'd say it damn well supports "female violence is systematically minimized and denied". The first part of the sentence is supported by the first two citations, Kelly and Fierze.
 * About Cook's book. See page 102 ("few regular support groups exist"), page 89 ("male options are more limited"), and page 72 for a discussion of how such stereotypes hurts men. It is easy to see how the Rosenthal citation supports the sentence (although I admit I should have picked a better quote). The article talks at length about how things such as the VAWA only focus on women. I will improve that.
 * Third. That is what the whole book is about and I do not see how you can honestly challenge that citation. Just read the the product description from Amazon. The thesis of the book is that the media and others are spreading misandry and gives a number of ways they do this including domestic violence myths.
 * Now, you evidence for a cherry picked POV makes no sense. The current version does not cover the prevalence of domestic violence so I don't understand how linking me to a BBC article that says men batter more is at all relevant. If you would like to introduce the issue of prevalence in, please go ahead.
 * Finally about synthesis. If you read WP:SYNTH, it says articles should not go X and Y therefore Z. This section does not do this in any way! You instead seem to be making the claim that if a source does not contain the title of an article it can not possibly be on topic? Well, go trim out about 15% of Wikipedia's content then. In the Women's rights article for example many of the sources used to used to write the voting section only talk about "suffrage" not womens rights ('oh noes! SYNTHESIS! how can we know the sources are on topic if they do not use the phrase "women's rights"??'). The issue of men and domestic violence and unfairness or bias (which all the sources discuss) is appropriate for an article on men's rights both by common sense (You don't need to cite that the sky is blue) and by the extensive bibliographies of writers such as Warren Farrell. extransit (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict) They may be easily addressed, but not so easily accepted, I fear.
 * First: "Female violence" can mean all sorts of things, including female serial killers, for example. What is the connection to domestic violence? If you can't provide a page number from the Motz book, that links this directly to the claim that "In many jurisdictions, domestic violence is seen as men assaulting women and female violence is systematically minimized and denied" it needs to be removed as a citation.
 * Second: Thanks for offering to improve. I will wait for you to do so.
 * Third: Yes, you are right that the whole of Nathanson and Young is about how misinformation has affected the perception of men etc... but you've quoted this in a section about men's rights and domestic violence. Where do they discuss this topic?  Which page number? Per WP:V you need to provide a source that "directly supports it", including "page numbers where applicable".  It is the epitome of original research and advocacy to collect together disparate reliable sources, none of which make the specific point, to make a new argument.
 * Cherry picking: of course your preferred version makes a point. Instead of summarizing the article accurately and neutrally, as required by all editors, you have chosen to pick out one point, ignoring all the rest.
 * Synthesis: The Women's rights article is irrelevant, so I have no idea whether your point is correct or not, though I'd point out that a synonym for suffrage is voting rights. Complain at the Women rights article if you have issues with the content of that article. As far as this article is concerned, an article about Men's rights needs to be about things that secondary sources have identified as men's rights. Collecting together various facts (even if sourced) in an article is original research. See WP:OR "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The sources need to make the connection and point to men's rights. Otherwise it appears that you are collecting together various bits of information to make a point. I (and others) am challenging your sources and your sourcing and your conclusions, so references to "common sense" is not appropriate. --Slp1 (talk) 23:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The pedantry of your arguments is incredible and off-base.
 * About Motz. Section three in her book is entirely about domestic violence. Would any reasonable person conclude that when said she "violence" she was including domestic violence? Yes. Would any reasonable person conclude that that was what she intended? Yes. Reading a text as it is supposed to be read is not synthesis.
 * About Nathanson and Young, ditto with above.
 * You say "It is the epitome of original research and advocacy to collect together disparate reliable sources, none of which make the specific point, to make a new argument", please explain how I am doing that? I have assembled a number of sources arguing that men are being neglected or treated unfairly over the issue of domestic violence and used their arguments. Men being treated unfairly by the legal system is topical for the article per common sense and the definitions from Farrell, as I said above. I also reject you calling me pointing out the standard practice of using sources that cover a topic even if they do not use the exact term as "irrelevant". extransit (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it is true that the Motz reference is not as topical as it could be so I am going to replace with another citation to Cook. extransit (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's the same arguments being used to justify deleting the Sentencing disparity section. If the sources don't specifically say "men's rights", it's off topic. . I suspect this issue (are these SYNTH? or is SYNTH being used excessively stringently?) will need to be resolved before this article can possibly move forward.--Kratch (talk) 02:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no they are twisting WP:SYNTH. I'm going to start a new section about this in a bit; this tactic for whittling away the content needs to be bitten off at the head. If something is topical is a question for reliable sources, but once topicality is established it does not need to be reiterated in every single citation. Take a look at, say, Nuclear safety or Aftermath of World War I, hardly any of the sources used contain the title of their respective topic yet we use them because we know they are topical. We do need to demonstrate first that something is a men's rights issue (if someone could get their hands on some Farrell then we would be set for life), but once that is established with reliable sources then using sources that discuss only that issue is appropriate. extransit (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, well I have given 90 minutes that I didn't have to compose something about men's rights and domestic violence that is sourced to high quality sources. All the sources talk about both men's rights and domestic violence, and thus there should be no synthesis now. It really wasn't that difficult to do: it's just a question of looking for the right sources. BTW, extransit, you don't need to find articles with men's rights in the title. It just needs to be part of the topic of the paragraph, page, or whatever.--Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
Updated introduction for clarity and included more information. Removed the bit about historical roles of men relating to their physical capabilities, not germane to the introduction but might have a place elsewhere. LikaTika (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does the MR intro say "claimed by men/boys" whereas the WR article says "claimed for"? This seems inconsistent and introduces subtle, yet important bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzz90210 (talk • contribs) 03:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree, this seems like a badly worded sentence. The men and boys aren't necessarily doing the claiming, but rather the claims are made on behalf of men and boys.  But the whole article has incredibly badly worded sentences, some of which devolve into factual error. I don't have the time or inclination to fix them, as I only clicked here because I thought it might be the page for the philosophical concept. OptimistInChief (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Confused
I came here to look at the RFC - over a page move. The discussions - pro and con - seem to have some kind of partisan MRA/feminist agenda behind them, but for the life of me I can't see what benefit there is to either party in either name.

Looking at the vast amount of text it does seem fairly evident that there is a lot of uncertainty as to what belongs here though.

For that reason I would suggest that there are a bunch of basic ideas that need articles:


 * 1) The men's rights movement, which should present a historical overview of the personalities, groups, campaigns etc.. (With other movements I have read about this is always an interesting story.)
 * 2) Men's rights  or lack thereof qua men, in various societies - for example when various groups of men achieved suffrage, a man's rights over his wife's property.
 * 3) Men's rights  or lack thereof as opposed to women's, in various societies - for example a man's rights over his family's property, lack of right to sue for alimony, polygamy without polyandry, polyandry without polygamy, matrilocal vs patrilocal.
 * 4) Discrimination against men, both rights based, which overlaps the above, and societal which does not.

I would assume that item 3 would de-facto cover both genders, and may already exist. 1, 2 and 4 would or should be part of a matched pair. Rich Farmbrough, 22:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC).


 * I think this is a great suggestion and may solve the issues with scope that seem to plague this article. I have been working on a men's rights movement article on a userpage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:LikaTika/men%27s_rights_movement and would sincerely appreciate any feedback and assistance developing it. I think at the very least, it will help make things here much clearer. LikaTika (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll just note that only the first point (and maybe the fourth) can be done without engaging in wp:original research. Point three has sourcing, but not in the context of men's rights; point two sounds like it would involve creating a set of unprovable theses in anthropology.  -- Ludwigs 2  16:01, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Any of these except the first will be exceptionally difficult articles to write in a fashion appropriate for a Wikipedia article, and especially with the second and third I'm not sure that it is even possible. So far, I have not been able to find (and if anyone else has they haven't posted them here) a suitable selection of sources that cover 2 and 3 as coherent topics to be able to write articles about them that are not original research. I'm not sure that we can have articles on subjects that no secondary source has treated as a coherent subject.

4 will represent different difficulties than 2 and 3, and its difficulties may be surmountable, although I'm not sure. However, since most of the content previously contained in this article was explicitly focused on 'things that men's rights groups of the 20th and 21st centuries in the industrialized world view as men's rights issues' I feel that the existing stuff from this article would be more productively covered in an article about men's rights activism or the men's rights movement. (It'd also still present really fun problems of scope.) Kevin (talk) 20:05, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Anyone reviewing the edits, and the comments in the blanked out pieces can see this has been a hatchet job by some feminists and supporters. Why they keep insisting, I don't know, eventually there will be a backlash. I used to think wikipedia was pretty ok, but since I've started editing I noticed how pov-pushing is everywhere. I don't care much about men's rights, but wikipedia is going down the hill, wonder how long it will last DS Belgium (talk) 21:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Prison rape & Cancer sections
I have removed this, because apart from the main claims being utterly unsourced, it is completely irrelevant to this article. It is clearly ridiculous to have a section pointing out that men are more likely to be raped in prison, without equating this with the likelihood of either gender being raped in general. I have added a caveat to the Cancer section, although I'm unconvinced that this needs to be here either. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:39, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I see no reason why the following sentence belongs in a section about the low spending of money on prostate cancer: "However, this has to be seen in the context that breast cancer mortality rates are significantly higher, and that screening is more expensive than that for prostate cancer." It is silly to say anything "has to be seen" in any light whatsoever. That is a call to the reader to adopt a position which is influenced by an unbiased perspective. This article is not meant to be a debate about the validity of complaints over men's rights. Furthermore, this statement contains nothing quantifiable. I might think differently if there was quoted a mathematical model showing the ratio in quality-adjusted life years for each cancer, vs. the ratio in spending for each cancer. Until such quantification is made available, I am removing the statement altogether. Undiskedste (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

"Logical opposite"?
In the very first paragraph, I replaced the phrase "logical opposite" with "natural complement."

The "logical opposite" of women's rights is "not women's rights," which could mean many things--none of them "men's rights."

Undiskedste (talk) 23:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Undiskedste, 30/10/2011
 * I agree that 'logical opposite' didn't really work - men's rights are not in logical opposition to women's rights. I also feel iffy about 'natural complement', but it's definitely better at least.  Thanks for making the change.  Kevin (talk) 18:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The phrase "natural complement" seems rather disingenuous to me. While the original Men's liberation movement in the early 70s was about opposing all forms of sexism, that movement split into 2 factions - pro-feminist and anti-feminist. The current "men's rights movement" (which this article is substantially about), falls decidedly in the 2nd camp. While men's rights and women's rights may sound complimentary on paper, they seem to be opposing factions in reality. Kaldari (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kaldari, if you want to discuss how the "men's rights" movement is anti-feminist, you have to tell us to which branch of feminism you are referring. Obviously neither the men's rights movement, nor this article, are decidedly against women's rights, which many feminists describe feminism as being about. We should not be surprised, however, that some faction of the movement described in the article is against some level of hatred of men, which is espoused by some feminist groups. So even if this movement is anti-misandry, it is not necessarily by-and-large anti-women's rights. And therefore it is still accurate to describe men's rights as complementary to women's rights, even if you take the position that men's rights and women's rights are only terms being used to describe specific movements.


 * Anyway, even if I accepted your premise, to me it would still be a distortion to say men's rights is the "logical opposite" of women's rights. If you have a better way of saying that "there are men out there who want to work for men's rights in the same way women have worked for women's rights," my brain is open. 173.133.187.36 (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, looking over the article in detail, you will see that the so-called "men's rights movement" to which you refer is hardly mentioned except in the History section, which is hardly a paragraph. So you would need to make a stronger case that this article is "substantially about" the "men's rights movement" which began in the US.173.133.187.36 (talk) 13:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I definitely wouldn't support "logical opposite". Both "logical opposite" and "natural compliment" seem overly simplistic. Clearly the relationship is complicated. If it wasn't complicated, we could just merge men's rights and women's rights with human rights. (And we wouldn't have people on this talk page complaining about a "feminist" or "men's rights" agenda.) The complication is that these rights are being defined and fought for within the context of specific movements, and these movements don't seem to see eye to eye. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kaldari, neither is a good choice. There is nothing either logical or natural about this topic. If anything it is a political opposite, and a social complement. But it is more correct to say that it is presented as a reaction to women's rights.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with that, as it's not a "reaction" to women's rights, that's a simplification of a complicated matter as well. If your talking about the movement, then it's a reaction to what they see as an oppression of men's rights, (not actually a response to women's rights movement, as if MRAs didn't believe their rights were being infringed the movement wouldn't exist) I personally think we are making a opinion without supporting source and should completely remove that part. TickTock2 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with doing so until a source is brought up. Kevin (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, removing as I've seen no objections. TickTock2 (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit, I see nothing wrong with the statement that "men's rights is a subset of human rights and a complement to women's rights." In fact, without counting people whose sex is neither male nor female, in the strictest sense of all the words used in that sentence, that statement is axiomatically true. The set of human rights can be partitioned into women's rights and men's rights (all humans are either male or female under our assumptions) and the complement of men's rights is women's rights. If you like I can draw a diagram.Undiskedste (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But do you have any sources for any of this? This whole thing seems like clear original research to me. Let's find some sources saying what men's rights are, rather than trying to make up a definition ourselves. Also I'd suggest waiting to write the lead until the actual article is done.  The lead is supposed to summarize the article, and the article is such a mess it doesn't seem worth the effort at present to try and finalize anything in the lead yet. --Slp1 (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's no reason to work on the lead right now. My point in editing first was to correct something false. But there is no OR in noting that, if "humans' rights" are "the rights of men and women," and we want to know the Complement_(set_theory) of "women's rights," then it is, axiomatically, "men's rights." That is, again, assuming we take all humans to fall under the categories "man" and "woman," which is not really true when people use very precise language(we have to decide about children, intergender, etc); but there is unlikely to be a discussion about "girls' rights" and "boys' rights," and "intergender rights" will likely belong to some combination of subsets of "queer rights," and therefore belong to both men's and women's rights, thus destroying the whole partition idea. My point being, there is no OR since it is axiomatic given the assumptions--completely aside from the debate over whether or not the statement is needed. (My feeling is no, since it's such a trivial observation anyway.)Undiskedste (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ... really the whole formulation is problematic. The above is not really true. Sure, the set of humans might be partitioned thus; but their rights, let's hope, cannot be in the sense implied above. Nonetheless I stand by my observation that the loosely understood "complement," as that which completes, needs no source to be used in its sense. When you combine women's rights and men's rights, assuming all humans to belong to either of those sets, you surely get human rights.Undiskedste (talk) 01:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)