This template is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This template is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this template, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
I've removed the links to Man, Boy, and Masculinity from this template per WP:NAVBOX criteria #1, 2, and 3. Placing these links directly underneath the link to Masculism implies that the latter is an umbrella topic covering all aspects of the former, which is clearly not the case. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no consensus for inclusion there either. I'm reverting per WP:ONUS. The next step is probably a centralized RfC on the project talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Masculism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Still no consensus after relisting. Deserves more discussion elsewhere, perhaps an RFC. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
– A look at the Masculism article and its talk page makes pretty clear that this is not a coherent, well-defined subject, so WP:NAVBOX guideline #1 is not satisfied. I've looked through most of the articles listed on both templates, and the vast majority make no mention of either masculismormasculinism. So WP:NAVBOX #2 is not satisfied either.
I would suggest merging the general men-and-boys-related links to the newly created {{Boys and men sidebar}}, and keeping only the men's-movement-related links here. — Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2019 (UTC) --Relisting.Steel1943 (talk) 02:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with refactoring this to TFD if others think that would be a more appropriate forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The editor who created this initially called it a Men's rights sidebar, which would have been more appropriate. See User:Apples grow on pines/Sandbox: Men's Rights sidebar. It's clear from the men's-movement literature that most sources don't use the terms masculismormasculinism. The {{Masculinism}} and {{Masculism sidebar}} have been created to mirror {{Feminism}} and {{Feminism sidebar}}. But feminism is a movement to address the "othering" of women within societies that prioritize the male point of view by regarding it as the default. There is no male -ism that corresponds to that. The creation of mirror templates is misleading OR/SYN. SarahSV(talk) 05:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out about the template's creator; I wasn't aware it was originally labeled "Men's rights sidebar", but it makes sense. A relevant permalink is here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a continuation of SarahSV's and Sangdeboeuf's POV pushing campaign to redefine and delegitimize the masculism article and related. The men's movement is an ill-defined topic area focused on a subset of issues that are relevant to masculism - a broader topic area. -- Netoholic@ 05:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly WP:AGF and refrain from casting such WP:ASPERSIONS. If the issues mentioned in the template(s) are really relevant to the main subject, then it's certainly strange to find virtually no mention of masculism/masculinism in the associated articles (including Men's movement). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd AGF but putting in for this move without the base disagreement over the masculism article itself are settled first demonstrates an escalation on your part. You and SaraSV are pushing a POV that feminism does not have a "male"-focused equivalent, and that is clearly shown to be incorrect. Just as feminism is a broad topic with many different movements and related topics included, masculism, which any speaker of English can see "is the precise morphological equivalent of feminism"[1] as well an acknowledged ideological equivalent[2], is the broader topic area. I invite outside editors to look over all the additional evidence at Talk:Masculism#Scope changes. I myself withdrew a similar prior move request about this template (see Talk:Masculism#Requested move 13 May 2019) due to doing a deeper investigation of this topic. -- Netoholic@ 06:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This entire line of argument is off-topic. But your accusations of POV-pushing are ironic to say the least, given that a number of participants at the recent WikiProject Men deletion discussion suggested that you yourself have been pushing a false equivalence between women's and men's advocacy issues on Wikipedia.
Your statement about "WEIGHT of RS coverage between feminism and masculism" has no bearing. Certainly, there are WEIGHT differences between any pair of mirrored topic areas, that doesn't mean the lesser-known topic area has to be eliminated. Imagine if someone suggested that {{international women's basketball}} template (a functional mirror of the men's basketball equivalent {{international basketball}} be eliminated or radically renamed/redesigned just because there are fewer RS sources devoted to that topic area. Wikipedia is an educational tool, and, if anything, this template is even more necessary because the topic area's breadth may be less known, misunderstood, and harder to intuitively navigate. Just as there are some feminists that are sympathetic to men's concerns, there are also masculists which are strong allies to feminism, but which don't identify as part of that movement - its even possible to be both feminist and masculist. You're pushing a POV that seeks to force its own false equivalence - trying to lump the wide range of male advocacy with the much more narrow "men's movement" or even MRA's. -- Netoholic@ 10:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an alternative idea for naming these templates, then propose it here. There is vanishingly little verified content tying any of the listed topics to masculism/masculinism. So they cannot be part of any "series on Masculism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is only your opinion based on your POV interpretation of the terms. When you have narrow view of a topic and wish to see it be narrowed even further, of course you're going to say that. Masculism, which includes men and masculinities studies, etc. is a broad topic area with an obvious connection. In fact, as long as you keep pushing to keep the masculism article about two different topics merged into one, then you make a template with this title even more encompassing. This is why issues with the handling of the base article need to be addressed before pushing for any move of the related templates. This is why I withdrew my own move request. -- Netoholic@ 19:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is only your opinion based on your POV interpretation of the terms. No, it's an assessment of how often the terms masculism/masculinism appear, cited to published RSes, in the listed articles, which is almost never. Nor is there anything at either Men's studiesorMasculism to suggest the latter encompasses the former. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Masculinism may not be the ideal term, but Men's movement is not either. Most of the articles listed in the templates are not movements. Even those listed as movements, such as MGTOW are in effect virtual communities.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose I guess you could say I agree with Guilherme Burn here, but I don't really know that for sure. I fundamentally believe that this template and {{Masculinism}} should just be renamed in favor of the neutral terms {{Masculinity}} and {{Masculinity sidebar}}. We DON'T need a navbox nor sidebar for the MRM nor any associated topics. All these move requests keep getting away from that fact. It's really dumbfounding to me that we have more templates on fictional characters than we do an entire gender. This dang POV template shouldn't exist, but the best we can do is turn it into something actually useful (a template on masculinity). Just so people know where I am coming from, I am a self-avowed feminist! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 23:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and because what I am proposing is essentially a back door delete, I would agree with closing this move request in favor of a TFD (that I ask I may be notified about). –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 23:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MJL, if the people with concerns about these templates oppose each other's suggestions, the status quo prevails. Sometimes change has to happen in stages. SarahSV(talk) 23:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SarahSV: [Thank you for the ping] I don't know about that. Having a fresh TFD with wider perspectives will lead to the best result. There was enough discussion about renaming the templates Masculinity in the previous move request, so I don't see my proposal as unjustified. A broader navbox and a broader conversation just seems to make the most sense to me. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fine with closing this and opening a discussion at WP:TFD. Either that or refactoring this discussion there. I really don't care where the discussion takes place, just as long as we reach some kind of consensus about the proper scope and naming of the navboxes associated with many of the men's-movement articles. As I stated, there is already a {{Boys and men sidebar}}, and we could create {{Boys and men}} too if wanted. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly complicates things a bit. I suppose just nominate to delete {{Masculism sidebar}} and refocus {{Masculinism}} into {{Masculinity}}. Problem would be solved! :D –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 00:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What would a {{Masculinity}} template add that wouldn't be encompassed by {{Boys and men}} (the analogue of the already existing sidebar)? The latter seems a more natural choice to me, since it can encompass topics like men's health and relationships that don't necessarily hinge on the concept of masculinity. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
{{Boys and men sidebar}} is too broad of a term for the purposes of a navbox. We don't have a template called {{Women}}or{{Females}} for that kind of reason. {{masculinity}} could focus on men's relationship to society in a more focused manner. If we later create a navbox for {{Men's health}}, that is great! For now, it all doesn't need to be in a single navbox. Finally, I don't think it is absolutely necessary to have both a sidebar and navbox share a name (to my limited knowledge of the subject). –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 00:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a little confused. It seems like you're saying we should keep the existing sidebar alongside a new {{Masculinity}} navbox – would that also be a sidebar, or a bottom-of-the-page template? – but also that the existing sidebar has too broad a title. So then why not rename it?
The other problem I see is that masculinity itself, far from being a neutral term as you suggest, is something of a Rorschach test that invokes differing ideas about gender essentialism vs. the social construction of gender in men. That's a pretty fraught area, as evidenced by the popular discourse around the concept of "toxic masculinity". I fear that a {{Masculinity}} template would just get mired in the same kind of conflict. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's important to stay focused if you want change, because if you don't, the status quo will prevail. A move to "men's movement" or "men's issues" or "men's rights" would take it away from the contested terms "masuclism/masculinism". A move to another contested term would reproduce the problem. SarahSV(talk) 02:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Masculinity is not a bad thing nor a plagued term. If that was to be the case, then the term toxic masculinity wouldn't exist (toxic being the qualifier). Masculinity is a societal construct which describes the set of standards and goals for men to be typically held to. This is unlike the term used to describe men as themselves (boys and men, etc.) nor the concerns unique them (Men's issues). My arguement is that a navbox concerning any men's rights-affiliated term nor anything that can be construed as related to such. Both a {{masculism sidebar}}and{{Men's rights}} navbox would both be improper POV and promoting a WP:FRINGE ideology. Why should we allow that? –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has many articles, categories, and navigation templates relating to contentious, fringe, and even widely-reviled ideas; see {{Nazism}}, {{Stalinism}}, {{Fascism}}, etc. Helping readers find material about these topics is not the same as promoting them. (But do note that my second suggestion was a {{Men's rights movement}} navbox, not {{Men's rights}}, full stop.)
Masculinity as a "societal construct" is mostly an academic concept; while that's fine for an encyclopedia article, a navbox that's going to appear on lots of articles should be labeled with something more quickly and easily understood. In any case, you'd have to propose moving or deleting the {{Boys and men sidebar}} itself if you think the name is too broad. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support the proposed moves to "Men's movement"/"Men's movement sidebar". I've decided to consider this question narrowly. I'm not considering whether the templates should be deleted, nor what the ideal scope/title for the templates should be. I'm only considering the question at hand. By my count, the phrase "men's movement" appears in 10 articles that are linked in the templates (and the word "movement", on its own, appears in many more than that.) Meanwhile, only two linked articles seem to contain "masculism" or "masculinism". (Note: I didn't count appearances in templates, "see also" links, references, indexes or categories.) WanderingWanda (talk) 02:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
