Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

I have checked the WHO death tolls, which were satisfactory sources for the articles on prostate cancer and breast cancer. It seems that the death rate (per million) is 3.97 for breast cancer and 1.75 for prostate cancer, unless there is a mistake in my calculations. A quick glance at the visual representations given in both articles supports an obvious prevalence of one over the other, though this is hardly a thorough method of analysis.

Irrelevant to the point, but a cause of uncertainty on my part: Though the page[1] referenced in both articles claims these numbers are for 2004, the .xls file itself is marked February 2009. NotARusski (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are breast cancer and prostate cancer necessarily equivalent? Breast cancer gets disproportionately more funding than most other cancers which affect both genders, and also those other cancers (ovarian, cervical, endometrial) which also only affect women. (Harryirene (talk) 02:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC))

The part that it says about male's experiencing less joy after circumcision isn't true, I've heard many doctors who say thats false and even the opposite. Heck even on the Doctors (Tv Show) and Doctor Oz say its the opposite. And at least Doctor Oz is reliable. 72.199.100.223 (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement about the health benefits of circumcision is disputed. On circumcision it is states that some studies show no effect. I don't think this statement: "However, unlike female circumcision, male circumcision also has health benefits, such as the reduction of AIDS infection and transmission." is appropriate here. --WikiDonn (talk) 05:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent studies show that the foreskin is there for a reason, it collects bacteria which would, if foreskin wouldn't be present, accumulate on the glans of the penis and meatus, thus exposing men to UTIs, foreskin protects the galns from abbrasion, foreskin helps lubrication and increases sexual pleasure because of friction.source

Removing the foreskin at child birth should, and is in most countries, be considered a form of genital mutilation. This should be stated in the article to help represent the global view.

I removed this section (content below) from the article, because it was dubious, uncited, tagged for cleanup, contains weasel words, and lacks neutral point of view. If the information is actually correct, please re-add it to the article, being sure to add appropriate citations to Reliable Sources. Thanks, Vectro (talk) 21:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to self-styled "progressive" masculism, which is essentially grounded in, and a complement to, the feminist worldview, Patriarchal masculism emphasises and defends "traditional manliness" and traditional male (and, by extension, female) gender roles.

It is argued by this branch of masculism that these roles are essentially positive for men. This branch perceives that traditional male behavior and norms are on the decline, and that it is necessary to resurrect them through articulation of their virtue.

This branch of masculism can be said ^{[dubious – discuss]} to be androcentric in some instances, as opposed to the allegedly gynocentric nature of "progressive" masculism.

This branch views the (loose) replacement gender roles for men in the feminist and post-feminist landscape as unsatisfactory. Also, the practical shortcomings of the gender egalitarian philosophy are critiqued.

The article begins "Masculism is the belief in the superiority of men or the masculine." But the rest of the articles is about critisism of unfair treatment of men, which can hardly be classified as "belief in the superiority". The first sentence is taken from a dictionary and I really doubt that any of the masculists themselves would agree on that definition. Aaker (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Masculinists can't just define themselves just as feminists can't just define themselves. The Merriam Webster dictionary and Allwords define "masculism" and "masculinism" as the belief in the superiority of men. The vast majority of other sources state the same thing. Randygeorge (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong to claim that "The vast majority of other sources state the same thing." All you have are two internet sources.

It's completely wrong for you to take what is a clear dispute between two sides and then arbitrary declare the side you happen to agree with as right, and then censor information you don't like from the article in order to declare your views as gospel. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the OED, generally the authority on the use of English words, defines malculism as a synonym of masculinism, which in turn it defines as "Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo." This is supported by citations going back to 1911, that quote being "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." Cheers, Vectro (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have said "the majority of reliable sources" Masculinists can't define themselves. We have to represent what reliable sourcessay. Randygeorge (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the OED is not a reliable source? Vectro (talk) 02:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence that needs to be sources is this:

"The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law."

Sugar-Baby-Love gives an Oxford English Dictionary definition (which I can't verify because one has to subscribe but let's assume that Sugar-Baby-Love is correct). The definition is this: "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." The sentence "Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism" doesn't confirm and can't be used as a source for the sentence "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law." This is original research and must be removed.

A second source provided by Sugar-Baby-Love is a Cathy Young article. At no point in the article does she say something that even resembles the sentence "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law." What she says is this

"Mas*cu*lism, n. 1. the belief that equality between the sexes requires the recognition and redress of prejudice and discrimination against men as well as women. 2. the movement organized around this belief. Not to worry: This word is not in the dictionary. But it would be if the decision were up to Warren Farrell, Jack Kammer, and others activists in the men's movement."

Thus, the article can't be used as a source for the sentence.

Therefore, the "first definition" according to Sugar-Babys-Love's original research remains unsourced because the OED "definition" and Cathy Young's article don't state anything which resembles this "first definition." All unsourced material must be removed aggressively because Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a place for masculists to define themselves and their "movement." Sugar-Baby-Love is has been violating Wiipedia policy by edit-warring and writing original research. Randygeorge (talk) 08:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Randygeorge, not sure why you don't think the OED definition fails to support SBL's definition. The very first definition is literally "advocacy of the rights of men". Can you elaborate on your perspective? Vectro (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Section now says,

"Masculism can be defined in two mutually contradictory ways. The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law.[1] Alternately, it is defined as the belief in the superiority of men or of masculine things and ideas.[2][3] In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism.[4]"

This is not perfect by any means but seems way better then what it was previously. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism" violates WP:OR. The "first definition" is the definition provided by dictionaries, not by Cathy Young's understanding of the word which was published in a unreliable source. Randygeorge (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I can see that you engage in editwarring. You will be reported as soon as I can. Randygeorge (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

You are engaged in a distortion of sources. You also continue to push a tendentious habit of putting your own personal opinion into articles in which several people have reverted your edits for good reason.

I would clearly welcome some extra attention on this page. Then, more people will be alerted to your habits. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Other dictionaries give different definitions.

We all know what you are doing. It's the same thing as noting the word "lead" can be (a)"Lead, the chemical element", (b)"Lead as in slang for bullets", (c)"Lead as in to be a 'leader' of things, etc. and then having you scrub out other meanings of the word in favor of just one of them. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Randygeorge, can you elaborate on your concern with respect to original research? I'm not quite following you. Vectro (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I have explained above that Sugar-Baby-Love's use of the two sources for his claim that "The first definition is as the advocacy of men's rights and the adherence to, or promotion of, social theories and moral philosophies concerning issues of gender with respect to the interests and legal protection of men. In this context, masculism is a particular aspect of the more general moral cause of gender equality under the law- in which advocates protest against alleged unfair treatment of men in issues such as divorce law" is original research because none of the sources confirm this claim.

Another example of original research is Sugar-Baby-Love's sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism." Sugar-Baby-Love gives the source: Susan B. Boyd; Dorothy E. Chunn; Hester Lessard (2007). Reaction and resistance: feminism, law, and social change. UBC Press. pp. 65-97. ISBN 9780774814119. Here is the book [2]. As it turns out the books doesn't state anything which could even remotely be construed as support for the sentence "In this context, which is the general opinion of modern feminists, masculism is inherently opposed to the equality cause and is labeled as a form of anti-feminism." Again, this is original research and yet another violation of Wikipedia policy by Sugar-Baby-Love.

What Sugar-Baby-Love does (beside edit-warring and failing to assume good faith) is write whatever he wants and then pick a random article or book which deals with feminism or the men's rights movement and use this as a source for his claims. He obviously hopes that nobody will make the effort to check the sources and expose his attempts to disguise his original research as viewpoints advanced by reliable sources.

If this can't be resolved in the next few days, I will request a dispute resolution and Sugar-Baby-Love's original research will be removed. Randygeorge (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Two cents from an uninvolved third party. It looks to me as though the phrase "the general opinion of modern feminists" is not adequately sourced, in this way: there's no doubt that the opinion is held, but there's no source to confirm that it is a dominant viewpoint. The "general" aspect of the opinion should require a source beyond that cited. Steveozone (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What the OED actually says, from someone who does have a subscription: Masculism: Advocacy of the rights of men; adherence to or promotion of opinions, values, etc., regarded as typical of men; (more generally) anti-feminism, machismo. 1911 Freewoman 30 Nov. 24 Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism. 1916 H. Ellis Ess. in War-time viii. 88 The advocates of Woman's Rights have seldom been met by the charge that they were unjustly encroaching on the Rights of Man. Feminism has never encountered an aggressive and self-conscious Masculinism. 1985 E. Showalter Feminine Malady (1987) vii. 173 That most masculine of enterprises, the Great War, the apocalypse of masculinism. 1988 G. Northam Shooting in Dark (1989) vii. 118 Another section gives a sketch of official masculinism in the form of notes on the perils of Women and children in public protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richaraj (talk • contribs) 06:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Umm, there's this thing called common sense, and I think Randygeorge regards this as original research. the thing is, this information is so obvious, no one bothers to write it down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaappel (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the Reason claim of a 6X discrepancy may be questionable. A few different sources seem to show a discrepancy of around 2X, still disproportionate but significantly less so. Could it be that Reason accidentally included private funds? This doesn't look to be a recent change. The business week article also notes that breast cancer, which is more fatal, kills roughly 2X as many as does prostate cancer. That article also notes that in 1996 there was a much wider discrepancy, close to 4X. Vectro (talk) 00:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.zerocancer.org/library/federal_funding_charts.pdf

http://www.kureit.org/

http://www.roswellpark.org/media/news/women-engaged-fight-against-prostate-cancer-take-advocacy-effort-capitol-hill

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2007/tc20070612_953676.htm

It seems that the most likely explanation is that funding rates have bobbed around through the 90s and the 00s.

The proper solution, then, would be to just add a little bit more information comparing from one time to from another time. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The current version seems fine. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:_Sugar-Baby-Love for futher information. Hopefully, we can come to some kind of consensus. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

• George has taken this content dispute to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sugar-Baby-Love (note to those involved). Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I removed the following citation from the article:

"Masculinism and feminism are relative terms, and when one is strong enough to equate the other both will become merged in a common doctrine of humanism." - Oxford English Dictionary

I have online access to the OED and saw no such definition. Perhaps the OED included a quote by someone else which contained this text? If so, you should quote the original source and not the OED. Also, when citing the OED, use {{OED}}. Feel free to restore the citation, including these considerations. Vectro (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What definition did you see with your access?--Cybermud (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See my remarks above under "Neutrality". It looks like someone took the OED's quotation, which is cited to "Freewoman 30 Nov. 24," as the OED definition. Vectro (talk) 23:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)