Talk:Minister for Men

This article was nominated for deletion on 19 May 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Men's rights movement#Minister for men]] The anchor (#Minister for men) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I understand that this article will need more work done; and therefore I will be concentrating on doing more research and study(ing) regarding this topic. I would be sincerely grateful if you could expand upon this article and would like to add your suggestions to this talk page.

Thank you.

This article is a stub and is therefore fine. It is beyond me why this article has been nominated for the subsequent deletion in question. This article should stay! and should wherefore, be expand(ed) upon.

Regards, Merly

Thank you for your comments Merly. it upsets me a great deal that some individual has nominated this article for deletion, as it is just a starting point for a much in depth article. After all this I am considering not bothering creating articles on wikipedia as if these vandals continue there dreaded works, our works will be for nothing! I will also reccomend to my friends to stop editing Wikipeida and revereating vandalism as if this is what we get, huu!

Thank you anyway Merly, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.119.20 (talk) 21:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the entire "Key Priorities" section should be removed from this article. The information listed constitutes

I take your point. However, the Key Priorities appear to be an essential part of the article as it forms the 'meat' and the backbone in relation to informing the perceptive reader why campaigners and lobby(ers) believe that a Minister for Men should exist within the UK cabinet. In your text (above) you state that "there is nothing stated in any of the references that indicate that any of the concerned groups are pushing for a Minister for Men" Although I can completely understand what you are conveying and what you mean, if you study all the links (especially one in particular); you will notice that all of the text is backed up by a Reference Number and this equally and further does not detract and go against the 'Original Research' criteria which Wikipedia rightly, does not allow, as the text is being stated in a Encyclopaedia-tic sense, as recorded reason(s) for why individuals and campaigners feel a Minister for Men should be appointed within the cabinet of England, Scotland, Wales (and any other forms of the United Kingdom). However I understand your view and will try to rectify the inclusions you have mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.144.36 (talk • contribs)

Actually, the "Key Priorities" section does not inform the reader why the campaigners want a Minister for Men; it rather informs readers why the article's author thinks there should be a Minister for Men, which constitutes

WP:NEUTRALITY). The article can only inform readers of the campaigners' agenda if it can cite relevant reliable sources that indicate what the campaigners' are actually seeking. What this section does is cite relevant sources that indicate that the ills exist, with no indication that anyone campaigning for a Minister for Men has included these ills in there arguments. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just wondering if there is still a dispute since the Key Priorities section has been removed. Let me know! (BTW, the first reference is used incorrectly. All the reference says is that there is a minister for women but it seems to be supporting the statement that 'a minister of men is needed because there is a minister for women'. It is important to be make sure that a citation supports only what it says. Just thought I'd mention that.) --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 01:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This opinion is with reference to the paragraph that includes the opinions of Mark Brooks and a 16 year old student. Let me first take the Mark Brooks opinion. For an opinion to be included in a wikipedia article, the person providing the opinion must be reliable and including the opinion must reflects the relative levels of support for those views. In this case, it is quite clear that Mark Brooks speaks for himself and an entire paragraph based on this blog post seems extreme and

Thanks for your input, Regents! WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely disagree with the stated. - RegentsPark It should hardly need to be said that young boys in Yorkshire are neither experts on most subjects nor representative of the populace at large This sentence which you have stated above could be considered

In the meantime; I suggest you study and learn Wikipedia's standards and principals before making such a biased judgement. Also look up the word biased and lobbying to learn a bit about that.

Regards Merly.

My apologies for upsetting you. I will duly make a study of Wikipedia's standards and principals (sic) and look up the words biased and lobbying. However, I suspect I will continue to fail to see why the opinion of a single boy from Yorkshire, though doubtless a fine and upstanding young citizen of the UK, can be considered to represent an informed view that the UK needs a 'Minister for Men' or can be considered to represent a groundswell of support for this post. A defect in my perceptual abilities, I'm sure, but there we have it! --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a stub; and is therefore fine. You should refer to Wikipedias Guidelines (I can't remember where the link is for this is; however, in one of the Wikipedias Guidelines it has a statement - "Do not rip down the House when it is being built" and this is exactly what I would say with this article.

It is a perfectly reasonable article which has a perfectly reasonable reason to be on Wikipedia as a

trippleact

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trippleact (talk • contribs) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple editors have concurred that the article, in its shortened form, is preferable, as it does not give undue weight to minority opinions. Please refrain from introducing such material again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, So let me get this straight; First you downgrade the article, strip it of its integrity and well over 85% worth of its initial value and then you Immediately nominate if for deletion! Im confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.80.156 (talk) 10:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can certainly understand why you would lament the removal from this article of support for the "movement" from such heavyweights as a schoolboy who "called on the Minister for Women and Equality, Harriet Harman[,] to support the idea of a Minister for Men." Particularly the high-flown, hard-hitting intellectual commentary offered by him on her response, calling it a "cop-out." Such biting prose has rarely been seen in defense of the commonweal since Winston left us. That's the kind of sophisticated analysis that we haven't seen since "Spitting Image" was cancelled. Alas the "Suninification" of political discourse. Likewise, removing the information that very nearly 382 people out of some sixty million Britons signed an online peition for this office is clear evidence that Wikipedia is supressing

the truth

about this widespread and popular movement.

WP:LAW } 13:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh well, I guess in this world we do have individual which are as thick as two short planks. You spelt Commonwealth wrong as well, you need to insert a "th". UUuummm,I might take it into subsequent consideration(s) to inform Wikipedia of your absurd, biased, delinquent, lackluster and to be quite honest a very sad indeed reply. Please take an English lesson and stop vandalising Wikipedia, we Wikipedians' just want to be helpful and contribute to an ever growing medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.3.203 (talk • contribs)

I'm loving the irony of having my intellect questioned by someone who thinks that the world "commonweal" is a misspelling of the word "commonwealth."- Simon Dodd {

WP:LAW } 20:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Perfectly reasonable article which can be built upon. Many references as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.3.203 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is ridiculous; Wikipedia has a

Arguments for against the retention of this article rightly go on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for Men (2nd nomination).