Let's keep 'em honest. Wikipedia Men's Rights page has been unblocked for editing, and is being edited by some of the same actors that caused trouble. Make sure to follow wiki-procedure, and enforce it from others.

KillerChihuahua · 2011-10-20T19:37:13+00:00

This page must have been really butchered. I mean here is my big list...

How does this belong in any wikipedia page?

In 2003, a Malaysian court ruled that, under sharia law, a man has the right to divorce his wife via text messaging.[20]

In this case this isn't even relevant to the discussion at all. How is this not breaking Wikipedia's rules? I imagine that a woman could "initiate" a divorce in America in the same way - and I don't even see a problem with that. This is editorialized garbage.

In this same section where is all of the information about the number of men and women who initiate divorce? Why is there no information showing that women initiate divorce way more often in jurisdictions where they stand to make the bigger financial and custodial gain? I imagine this information was there at one point - but I honestly have no clue how this whole system works. Where can I actually see why this was removed (if it was there in the first place)? Can you link me to that?

In the alimony section why is there no comparison of how often women receive money compared to men? Again, I imagine it was there...

Why is there no child support section?

Men's rights are the entitlements and freedoms claimed by boys and men.

Why does the women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_rights) not also have the citation needed comment by it? It has no source. More editorialized, one sided garbage.

In the paternal leave section why is there only a focus on what the law is? Why is there no statement about the societal pressure men have to earn money for their family, thus losing out on time spent with their kids (aka what happened to my dad, whom I wish I could have had a better relationship with).

In the women's rights wikipedia page there is a whole section on rape in war time. Why is there not a section in the men's rights page about deaths in combat? How is that not a gender issue by stark contrast?

In the social security section why is it not pointed out that, due to a woman's longer life expectancy, women receive a much better return on their investment than men? Why is it not pointed out that women generally pay in less in the first place as well? Why are only the year the benefits start brought up? This is only half the equation.

In the reproductive rights section why is it not brought up that a huge portion of all kids are not actually the father's biologically? Obviously someone deleted the paternity fraud section and I really can't see why. This is a serious issue.

Why are there not more specific examples in the section about male paternal rights? There has to be a whole slew of cases on the subject that we could poster up. This is another extremely unsettling issue - this is the big reason why I am legitimately scared to start a family in the USA.

Why is there no section about university attendance by gender?

Sorry if this comes off as a big rant. But I am actually happy to help fix a section or two listed here if it follows Wikipedia's rules. This is something I care a lot about and I don't mind spending time figuring this out. I guess I could just use a hand from an experience wikipedia user about where to start. I seriously don't know what sort of standard they expect - although given some of the crap I've read on other wikipedia pages it doesn't seem very high.

Ma99ie · 2011-10-20T21:02:12+00:00

I suppose that all of you should know, that the wiki warriors have taken note of our having taken note, that the page is unblocked. It appears that the blocked page was a result of "meat-puppets", which apparently is a venacular used on wikipedia to describe "editors" (anybody who edits, including you if you wanna) who are not regular editors, that come to wikipedia for one issue, or advance a POV. That is, they have been "canvased" from an outside sourse, and maybe pushing an agenda.

If you go to the wikipedia talk pages, and resolution pages, you'll notice that wikipedians use a lot of jargon in their conversations that represents an myriad of rules, most of which are subject to interpretation, allowing those who have an agenda, but a good knowledge of the rules, to manipulate conflicts.

These conflicts are presented to the community, who all opine, in their heavy jargon, about the proper course of conduct. But, you'll notice that those with a viewpoint that appears to be in opposition to consensus are attacked. I'll mention hermiod as being a victim of the wiki rule lawyering going on.

Edit: One rule I find problematic is the Assume Good Faith rule, which is apparently interpreted by many to mean that you have have blind faith in the motives of a person, no matter how much cirucmstantial evidence exists that a person has an agenda. It's silly really.

LemonArsonist · 2011-10-20T18:46:59+00:00

The Wikipedia man hating brigade will use this post as an example of what Wikipedia calls "canvassing" (something I bet they do 24/7 but it's only wrong when men do it).

It's a stupid situation. Any time anyone here highlights wrongdoing at Wikipedia the feminists immediately use it as an excuse to continue and even increase their censorship. It's a vicious circle.

I guess male studies people need to create a place of their own within Wikipedia, just as the feminists have done. That doesn't seem to be frowned upon for some reason.

Bobsutan · 2011-10-20T18:52:12+00:00

What happened? It used to be...informative. The whole thing has been damn well gutted of most of the key points. WTF?

that74thotherguy · 2011-10-21T01:02:32+00:00

here are some more sources for people who want to enter the edit war:

antimale legislation roundup

UN

FAQ

more

Human008 · 2011-10-20T20:48:18+00:00

I am an administrator on wikipedia and am happy to answer any honest questions here regarding the Men's rights page. I will probably not respond to uncivil comments, but if anyone wants clarification regarding any policies or why the page was not ok the way it was, I am here.

Just to put it out there, no I am not a feminist. I don't give a shit about women's rights, black's rights, men's rights, transgender rights or anything of the sort. I do care about human rights. I am a laissez-faire capitalist and as far as I'm concerned the only rational context of rights is that of individual rights.

No I'm not interested in talking politics, I just want it to be clear that I have no bias towards one group one way or another, and my role on wikipedia is only to enforce policy.

Since I'm a new user here there is a limit to how often I can post, so it might be a while before I get to any particular question.

Also, please try to keep questions concise and one at a time. If you post a wall of text like the post at the bottom of this page then I'll likely get bored reading it before I finish.

MrStinkybutt · 2011-10-20T23:23:47+00:00

This thread on the Wikipedia administrators board by Kevin Gorman is amusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#Men.27s_rights

Some time ago, I noticed that Men's rights seemed to be doing an exceptionally poor job at following content policies - especially WP:RS/WP:NPOV/WP:NOR. The article in the state before (diff) I started editing it had amazing problems. As a brief examples, from the lede: "The term men's rights refers to freedoms and rights of boys and men. This term is specifically related to focusing on rights which are protected for girls and women of all ages, yet inadequately protected for boys and men of all ages" - an unsourced ridiculously POV statement. There was tons of other silliness further in the article.

The text in the original men's rights article couldn't be any more neutral, and the article goes on to describe exactly which rights the opening text refers to - and since these parts of the article are sourced, there is no need for a source in the opening text.

Kevin's obvious bias against the idea that men might be denied rights that women are not is the real violation of NPOV (neutral point of view).

sigtrap · 2011-10-21T01:29:43+00:00

I read through some of the edits and the only thing I could think of was this.

Seriously. WTF.

millertime73 · 2011-10-21T17:20:56+00:00

I would rather see the Men's Rights page disappear from Wikipedia altogether than have it neutered by a bunch of laughable dullards hiding a POV agenda behind a thin veil of "Wikipedia policy". Let's cut to the chase, some people just can't stand to see Men's Rights issues articulated clearly in an easy to understand fashion.

Though these administrators probably feel good about themselves for allowing the defacing of the men's rights page, they will eventually be judged on the wrong side of history and progress. Screw these fools, let them have their little circle jerk and play in the sand with their stupid acronyms and initialisms.

The funny thing is, in the long run the nimrods at Wikipedia will likely just bring more attention to men's rights issues.

KillerChihuahua · 2011-10-21T18:55:18+00:00

As a note which may be of general interest: Several people have said or implied that the policies are not enforced equally across Wikipedia. Some data which may shine some light on this:

There are 3,772,546 articles on the English Wikipedia. There are 1,527 admins on the English Wikipedia, many of whom are not very active. If we assume about 1,000 active admins (2/3 of total), that's a ratio of one admin per 3,772.55 articles. IOW, we can't be everywhere, so that is a large reason policy appears to be enforced unevenly on Wikipedia. Its not on purpose, and its not that we don't care; its just a simple ratio. I know I'm not keeping a close eye on almost 4 thousand articles. I simply don't have the time.

Comments