Talk:Men Going Their Own Way: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:31, 7 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Men Going Their Own Way article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15: 90 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Why is MGTOW called anti-feminist and misogynist?

A1: Many published, reliable sources such as scholarly journals and books describe MGTOW as anti-feminist and/or misogynist,^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] and no reliable sources contradicting these descriptors have been found.

Q2: Why is MGTOW linked to white supremacy and the alt-right?

A2: Again, the short answer is that reliable sources have described the overlap between members of MGTOW and white supremacist and/or alt-right movements.^[5]^[6]^[7]

Q3: But what if the sources are biased?

A3: Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. If you have reliable sources that express contrary points of view or refute any statements in this article, please feel free to discuss them here. If you are unsure if a source is reliable, you can check to see if it is listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources or search the archives of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if its reliability has been discussed in the past.

Q4: How do I get something changed on this page?

A4: First, review the talk page and its archives to see if your concerns have been raised before. Collect at least one, but preferably several, independent, reliable sources that directly support the changes you want to make. (Personal experience with the MGTOW community doesn't count.) Then start a discussion on the talk page to obtain consensus for your changes. Finally, make a specific edit request, clearly indicating your proposed changes and the sources that support it.

References

^ Hodapp, Christa (2017). Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-49-852617-3.
^ Lin, Jie Liang (2017). "Antifeminism Online: MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)". In Frömming, Urte Undine; Köhn, Steffen; Fox, Samantha; Terry, Mike (eds.). Digital Environments: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces. Edition Medienwissenschaft. Transcript Verlag. p. 77. ISBN 978-3-8376-3497-6. JSTOR j.ctv1xxrxw.9.
^ Wright, Scott; Trott, Verity; Jones, Callum (2020). "'The pussy ain't worth it, bro': assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW". Information, Communication & Society. 23 (6): 3–4. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867. ISSN 1369-118X. S2CID 219023052. MGTOWs also contribute to the propagation of online harassment. Their contribution to a 'digital culture of misogyny' [...] combined with their rapid growth as other Manosphere groups face sanctions, positions them as an influential group within the Manosphere
^ Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.
^ Ging, Debbie; Siapera, Eugenia, eds. (2019). Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. p. x. ISBN 978-3-319-96226-9. OCLC 1108619233.
^ Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.
^ Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right. Alresford, UK: Zero Books. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-78535-543-1.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Men Going Their Own Way. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Men Going Their Own Way at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 30 December 2015, see discussion.
Delete, 3 June 2006, see discussion.

Alternative Views B‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Articles for creation B‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted from this draft on 26 December 2015 by reviewer Dodger67 (talk · contribs).

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Feminism B‑class Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism 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.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Men's Issues B‑class Low‑importance

	This article 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Carian, Emily K.; DiBranco, Alex; Ebin, Chelsea, eds. (2022). Male Supremacism in the United States: From Patriarchal Traditionalism to Misogynist Incels and the Alt-Right. Routledge. pp. 118, 122, 127–9, 134. ISBN 978-1-000-57622-1.
Harrod, Mary; Leonard, Suzanne; Negra, Diane, eds. (2021). "Introduction: Romance and social bonding in contemporary culture – before and after COVID-19". Imagining “We” in the Age of “I”. Abingdon, England: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781003039365-1. ISBN 978-1-003-03936-5.
Krendel, Alexandra (2021). "From Sexism to Misogyny: Can Online Echo Chambers Stay Quarantined?". In Zempi, Irene; Smith, Jo (eds.). Misogyny as Hate Crime. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-000-43034-9.

Discussion Regarding Recent Edit Requests

It is stated in the faq's that no reliable sources contrary to the "misogynist" label have been provided. If I can provide some, would anyone be willing to help me cite them?

I would also like to call attention to WP:IMPARTIAL - Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in this debate, but simply documenting it. Our reputation as a non-partisan purveyor of information is at stake. Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to help add content cited to such sources. Please read WP:RS for guidance on what counts as a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still performing my research and currently on my first source. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1618037&dswid=-5088 p49 of the pdf linked on that page (p49 of the text, not the pdf itself) Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Master's theses are discussed in the guideline I linked you to. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sober ReasoningBut also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'm concerned however, that the consensus among scholars and big media may be skewed by a concerted partisan effort among academia and media. Is there a Wikipedia policy dealing with such scenarios? Sober Reasoning (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming there's a conspiracy, of which only you have true knowledge? Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not claiming any conspiracies. I'm voicing a concern for the sake of discussion, that most articles from large media and academia on this topic may be written from a predominantly liberal and pro-feminist viewpoint and that conservative views may be underrepresented. I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory; I think it can be demonstrated through a review of the various literatures and could warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how one would go about demonstrating it for encyclopedic purposes, or how Wikipedia would handle such a situation. I hope that clarifies my previous comment. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia handles it like anything else where there are fringe views that have no support in mainstream publications. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable academic and journalistic sources. They may not agree with your wishes or perceptions. That's not Wikipedia's concern, unless and until the consensus of reliable sources changes. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We come into the issue of Wikipedia's non-partisanship at that point. Even if the sources are considered reliable, and aren't required to be non-biased, how do we claim non-partisanship of our assertions if the majority of reliable sources are partisan? WP:IMPARTIAL otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources, and give fringe views due weight according to their prominence and coverage in mainstream sources. It does not demand false balance equivocation or advocacy of fringe views -- =rather the opposite. In point of fact, NPOV requires that WP plainly state the consensus of reliable sources, and, if appropriate to note prominent dissenting views. In this case, there are no prominent dissenting voices that anyone has set forth. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the policy of giving various views due weight, and that no prominent dissenting voices have been set forth. I'm not suggesting that we jump on changing the article itself. My goal was to open a discussion about those sources and potential partisanship that may be there, and how we may handle prominent dissenting opinions if some can be brought forth. I'm also concerned about the use of Mark Zuckerberg as a reliable source in citation 2 of the article. Besides his wealth and fame, what lends him credence as an authority on this topic? Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, you saw "Zuckerberg" in the citation and knee-jerked yourself into thinking this article was quoting the CEO of Facebook? Why don't you re-read that citation and try again... Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mark Zuckerberg probably isn't, But Donna Zuckerberg, who is who's cited, appears to have written on the subject. Perhaps you should read the article and the sources (of which there are a mujltitude) more closely? Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see now it was Donna Zuckerberg. Thank you for the clarification on that item. Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be demonstrated — The best way to write Wikipedia articles is to review the sourcing available, and then write articles based on the viewpoints expressed therein. Choosing a position, then searching far and wide for sources that might support it that you think may be out there, is a good way to end up with an unbalanced article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the desire for WP:IMPARTIAL language, and I do my best to respect this in my own edits. But people raising this issue do themselves no favors when they start alleging a "partisan" conspiracy among reliable sources. For one thing, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Virtually all RSes are unanimous in that MGTOW promotes misogyny. Even if saying as much in WP:WIKIVOICE is less than ideal, all previous attempts to change this read more as efforts to whitewash the topic, which is worse than some opinionated language IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes a reliable source then? To my knowledge, a reliable source is an impartial, non-biased origin of verifiable and truthful information.

If a source is biased and partisan, it is then quite likely that the information presented will be not as accurate and skewed towards their respective partisan leanings. 24.239.68.230 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and its WP:BIASEDSOURCES subsection may be helpful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia is not a reliable source 2A02:C7F:C6C:3A00:1463:B427:6DAA:3CA7 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny?

6 month old discussion that did not achieve consensus does not need to be dredged up anew. Zaathras (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

In an encyclopedia, it is crucial to provide an accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive representation of any subject, including the MGTOW movement. Labeling the entire group as misogynistic without considering the diverse range of views and motivations among its members could lead to an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the movement.

It is essential to acknowledge that MGTOW is a decentralized movement, encompassing a wide range of perspectives and beliefs. HeerMeMoo (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide reliable sources to support your proposed changes EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Characterize?"

We should not be using sources that merely characterize things. Instead, they should be able to empirically support their positions with evidence or peer review. In this case, any source (the burden being on the currently used sources) would need to prove unequivocally that the entire movement is anti-women and not just anti-feminism.

Now for my spiel: Categorically, if you have any background in basic sociology, you can discern that being anti-women is misogynistic, while being anti-feminist is not. MGTOW is anti-feminist.

Back to wiki talk: I believe that using a source you found which "characterizes" anything is essentially using that source to validate the opinion of said source.

For example, using an encyclopedia as a source for what an apple's skin is made of is more reliable than going to a contentious website (assuming there's some fictitious argument over apple skin) that "characterizes" it as one thing and uses some disparaging term like "flimsy." And no, the encyclopedia in this example would not be “characterizing” anything by offering correct info.

(Misogyny is a disparaging term in this case.)

See:

"Closing Comments" in https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1618037/FULLTEXT01.pdf

My favorite lines being (regarding the MGTOW members researched) "online information should not be taken as representative of my informants" and "the practices of MGTOW can be understood as acts of resistance." HeerMeMoo (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:RS#SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I highly doubt this one qualifies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read the first paragraph of this Encyclopedia entry.It is clearly biased.

The use of the terms "Mysogynistic' 'Alt Right White Supremacy' will unfairly influence and misinform the new reader, who simply wants an accurate definition of the subject they have looked up, and are trusting Wikipedia to provide them with .

This type of prejudiced writing hardly does Wikipedia, or the wider world of knowledge, a service,And it is inclined to cause the more experienced reader to reduce the level of trust they have in this valuable on line service. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:439:2815:7232:DFC1 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an FAQ that addresses all this, this is not a forum for people to complain about how something is described in reliable sources. @FMSky, please explain why you think the IP is "making a good point"? The comment above is typical of the drive-by complaints that we see on a regular basis about characterizing a misogyny-based movement as misogynistic. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

its definitely a misogynist movement but the lead also said "white supremacist". the problem with this was that it was only backed up by the writing/opinion of a single (non-notable?) author without a page mentioned and it was prominently featured in the lead like it was a widely known fact. so i see why there are lots of IPs/driveby editors coming here to challenge some of the stuff being written. --FMSky (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at the references in the FAQ for this point and see if they can be incorporated. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page number was given in the citation: the lowercase Roman numeral x indicates a page in the foreword to the cited volume. It's not x as a placeholder or variable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that MGTOW is somehow misogynistic. It is definitely anti-feminist, but just because feminists hate MGTOW, doesn't make MGTOW misogynistic. The admin refuses to accept this fact. Wikipedia has lost all credibility when it comes to politics. This page needs a new admin. Lightningalex1 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"It is essential" that we follow the reliable sources, which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

view above reply to @EvergreenFir HeerMeMoo (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper is correct. A master's thesis is not sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HeerMeMoo, please stop this ridiculous formatting, sticking ::- after every line. It stretches out your posts twice as long as they need to be. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MGTOW communities? Members?

This article says a great deal about the MGTOW communities and their members and their beliefs. However, I am unable to confirm the existence of any such thing as an MGTOW community.

MGTOW.com is a blank page.

The NO MA'AM blog has been inactive since 2015. GalantFan (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct sites exist all over the internet. The article also mentions r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum. Are you saying the entire movement is some kind of hoax and that all the published papers, books, news articles, etc. are fake? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the published papers are authoritative and define the movement? Because resistance against external definition is literally in the term, "going their own way". The lede paragraphs are biased and present a one-sided view of small but vocal subset. GalantFan (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum also no longer exist and haven't been replaced. GalantFan (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. You have not provided any reason these published papers are unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The existing sources already point out in the History that the modern followers have diverged from the original followers. Descriptions which paint it as a uniform community are therefore false. GalantFan (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How this little coterie of women-haters define themselves is entirely irrelevant. We go by actual reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta spoon feed you.

"it is believed to have emerged in the early 2000s."

"Earlier members of MGTOW were largely libertarian. There is a divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW, with some earlier members expressing derision for the present-day MGTOW community."

"MGTOW often disavow hierarchies and claim to be leaderless; some deny that MGTOW is a group or movement at all, instead emphasizing each member's individuality and independence within a collective. "

Because there literally is no leader, no hierarchies, and no organization. It's like Antifa.

Everything I wrote in the intro is already in the article. GalantFan (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You go by sources. Their reliability is a matter of opinion. They attempt to define an ideology which is as individual as its practitioners. GalantFan (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even read the sources when you made this false claim. You did not follow the sources.

"which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)" GalantFan (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their reliability is a matter of opinion. I'm afraid that it most certainly is not. You are cautioned to stop making these edits, otherwise a block is likely. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are not reading the sources. Some of the sources say that it has changed since 2001 and that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny. GalantFan (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean holy crap, twenty years ago, it was just some guys who decided not to date anymore. OMG! How terrible! GalantFan (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sources say ... that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny – having read most of the sources myself, this seems unlikely, but go ahead and supply the exact citations, with relevant quotes if possible.

According to the sources we have, the divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW has to do with the movement becoming more overtly ~~right-wing and white-nationalist~~ tied to male separatism over time. Not with being more or less misogynist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC) edited 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-seven years ago, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project was started by a Canadian woman to be inclusive of sexually frustrated people of all genders. To define "incel" based on that project alone would be a simple whitewash. It's the same with this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am more concerned with what has been removed from the page than what has been added to it. Of course the modern online community should be discussed.

The problem in my view is that the origins and ideology have been completely overpowered and nearly completely eliminated from the article. GalantFan (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few years, the entire tone of the article has changed radically from its focus on describing MGTOW as a lifestyle of independence into concentrating on the toxicity of online forums. MANY other editors have objected to the current focus of the article. I believe the entire article should be reverted to its original focus on MGTOW as a lifestyle. GalantFan (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, you want the article to ignore the last 20 years of MGTOW's history because it reflects poorly on a "lifestyle" you're part of. That's not going to fly. We have an FAQ for this very reason. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you want to make such a drastic change to the article, you will need to present reliable sources that indicate this would be a comprehensive overview of the subject as it exists today. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"comprehensive overview of the subject", HA, is that what you think the current article represents? The entire article treats the subject as if it is an online club of malevolence against women.

Peter Banh said it as well as I have seen "MGTOW is a lifestyle. MGTOW advocates men to live a single life, focus on themselves, love themselves, take care of themselves, improve themselves. MGTOW men mind their own business, they leave women alone." GalantFan (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, feel free to present (actual) reliable sources to the contrary. I don't know who Peter Banh is, but you'll need actual published sources, not you putting words into the mouth of a random person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you literally just ascribe actions to me which I did not do. GalantFan (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

But Wiki articles are supposed to be all those things. GalantFan (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV means fairly and proportionally reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Not censoring material you find inconvenient or objectionable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MANY other editors have objected. Er, no. Single-purpose acounts, sockpuppets, trolls, and outside brigading do not count as actual editors here, when speak of gauging editorial consensus. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And there is another gross misrepresentation. GalantFan (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IP user 129.222.184.120 made a lone comment, never returned.
User Sober Reasoning made 5 comments 15 months ago, returned for 1 more 8 months ago. Little of substances contributed elsewhere.
User HeerMeMoo complained about using the SPLC as a source 9 months ago, complained a few times on the talk page to complain when his edit was reverted. Never returned.

Those are 3 examples on the current page that initiated discussions, not including one-and-dones that commented within them. Zaathras (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what's happening here? GalantFan isn't a new user, they know WP policies, they've been pointed at the FAQ. We don't need to have a debate with everyone who comes along here because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conversely, if we do not, then some editors will claim "silence equals consent," and then blaze forward with whatever it is that they want to do or change. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You claim you have consensus. You don't even represent the sources accurately.

"MGTOW – are men who claim to want to literally ‘go their own way’; they consider themselves separatists and encourage men to turn away from women and recentre themselves, valuing an individualistic, self-empowering way of life"

PDF GalantFan (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherry-picking a single quote from only one of many sources cited is the epitome of undue weight. FWIW, the focus on individualism and especially male separatism are already mentioned prominently in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re cherrypicking, you should read your own source past the first sentence, and especially the conclusion. When you do that, you see things like MGTOW propagate extensive and wide-ranging passive or undirected harassment and misogyny on Twitter. The conclusion says that the MGTOW forum is dominated by a small minority of posters who had made more than half of all the comments, and routinely set the agenda of discussion, that When talking about women, users did so in an openly misogynistic way, and that When talking about MGTOW, conversations sought to define and rationalise it as an ideology, both for the individual and the collective. The content analysis suggests the communicative form was largely communitarian, with stronggroup bonding, ties and engagement. It concludes that The prevalence of communitarian behaviours, particularly in regard to moderation and policing boundaries, somewhat contradicted the liberal individualism promoted within the MGTOW ideology and how they frame themselves as a ‘lifestyle’ or ‘philosophy’. Your own source is coming to a different conclusion than what you're trying to put into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just for the record, the sentence that you keep trying to insert into the lede is the source describing how MGTOW members describe themselves, not what MGTOW actually is, which is a very important distinction. When the source discusses what MGTOW actually is in its own voice, it says (in the very next sentence): MGTOW are a subgroup of the Manosphere which is the digital manifestation of the Men’s Liberation Movement, and home to several other male-only groups (emphasis mine). So, remind me who's misrepresenting what the sources say? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MGTOW

Is there any proof it's a misogynistic movement? 2600:8801:1098:3C00:C9FE:2218:DB6A:73A4 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a FAQ at the top of this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs more sources and it needs to represent them.

SPEAKING OF POV edits: The article consists almost entirely of critics. This article was originally written by supporters and has been flipped 180 degrees since it's origin.

Several places where the article calls a reference, it alters and misrepresents what is written in the source. The article should represent the reliable sources. PDF

Who is an MGTOW "member" has been redefined in the article's POV and in the limited selection of sources.

Since the article has been changed from it's origins, it has redefined MGTOW from being a lifestyle and ideology to being an online community, it has also redefined what it stands for based on who it claims is involved.

Now the article has become about a 5 digit number of hostile men in an online presence.

MGTOW terminology originated as a way to describe the MILLIONS of voluntarily single men and the article was written in a much more encompassing way. The POV has been completely altered since the article was created. GalantFan (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hodapp, Christa (2017). Men's Rights, Gender, and Social Media. Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books. pp. xvii–xviii. ISBN 978-1-49-852617-3.

[2] Lin, Jie Liang (2017). "Antifeminism Online: MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)". In Frömming, Urte Undine; Köhn, Steffen; Fox, Samantha; Terry, Mike (eds.). Digital Environments: Ethnographic Perspectives Across Global Online and Offline Spaces. Edition Medienwissenschaft. Transcript Verlag. p. 77. ISBN 978-3-8376-3497-6. JSTOR j.ctv1xxrxw.9.

[3] Wright, Scott; Trott, Verity; Jones, Callum (2020). "'The pussy ain't worth it, bro': assessing the discourse and structure of MGTOW". Information, Communication & Society. 23 (6): 3–4. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2020.1751867. ISSN 1369-118X. S2CID 219023052. MGTOWs also contribute to the propagation of online harassment. Their contribution to a 'digital culture of misogyny' [...] combined with their rapid growth as other Manosphere groups face sanctions, positions them as an influential group within the Manosphere

[4] Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.

[5] Ging, Debbie; Siapera, Eugenia, eds. (2019). Gender Hate Online: Understanding the New Anti-Feminism. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature. p. x. ISBN 978-3-319-96226-9. OCLC 1108619233.

[6] Zuckerberg, Donna (2018). Not All Dead White Men: Classics and Misogyny in the Digital Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-674-97555-2. OCLC 1020311558.

[Nagle-7] Nagle, Angela (2017). Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The Alt-Right. Alresford, UK: Zero Books. p. 94. ISBN 978-1-78535-543-1.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

@@ Line 157: / Line 157: @@
 Is there any proof it's a misogynistic movement? [[Special:Contributions/2600:8801:1098:3C00:C9FE:2218:DB6A:73A4|2600:8801:1098:3C00:C9FE:2218:DB6A:73A4]] ([[User talk:2600:8801:1098:3C00:C9FE:2218:DB6A:73A4|talk]]) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a FAQ at the top of this page. [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 10:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
+== The article needs more sources and it needs to represent them. ==
+SPEAKING OF POV edits:
+The article consists almost entirely of critics. This article was originally written by supporters and has been flipped 180 degrees since it's origin.
+Several places where the article calls a reference, it alters and misrepresents what is written in the source. The article should represent the reliable sources. [https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2023-01/Wright%2C%20%27The%20pussy%20ain%27t%20worth%20it%2C%20bro%27%20-%20MGTOW%202020.pdf PDF]
+Who is an MGTOW "member" has been redefined in the article's POV and in the limited selection of sources.
+Since the article has been changed from it's origins, it has redefined MGTOW from being a lifestyle and ideology to being an online community, it has also redefined what it stands for based on who it claims is involved.
+Now the article has become about a 5 digit number of hostile men in an online presence.
+MGTOW terminology originated as a way to describe the MILLIONS of voluntarily single men and the article was written in a much more encompassing way. The POV has been completely altered since the article was created. [[User:GalantFan|GalantFan]] ([[User talk:GalantFan|talk]]) 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)