Talk:Jack Donovan/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Donovan is not gay

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcthree/article/38039011-1cef-43e7-9098-e373e77a9ee5 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.1.188 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

80.117.1.188 the article doesn't say he is, it just says he went to gay clubs and events, and associated with drag queens. Caius G. (talk) 20:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, he has said different things at different times in his career. From early 2000s-2015 (at least), he seemed more okay self-describing as gay. More recently, he seems to have stopped calling himself gay, while media seem to mostly still describe him as such. Seems like adding a comment on his self-description is probably due. I'll look through the articles and see how that changes. Not sure how consistent this is. Jlevi (talk) 20:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Jlevi Perhaps we can call openly gay, but say that he describes himself as "androphile", e.g. "He is openly gay, but/and describes himself as androphile. Alternatively, we can call him androphile only, but WP:ABOUTSELF, e.g. the Proud Boys are neo-fascist despite their claims otherwise, so similar reasoning might apply here? Caius G. (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Caius G. Oh, certainly. I mean, Donovan's own characterization has changed over time (though I don't think that's been mentioned by RS--I'm just mentioning that for context), and we can absolutely take our main cues from RS. As the IP user notes correctly, on the other hand, there have been not an insignificant number of articles that discuss his unusual thoughts on his own sexuality. I think there's weight for both. Probably "Donovan is gay" is a little too concrete, but we can attribute (for media) and mention Donovan's different statements over time. Jlevi (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I would describe myself as bisexual, and no longer use the term "androphile" (a book I pulled out of print myself because I no longer agree with many aspects of its message and prefer to be known for my more important work) but as one of the leading authors of books about masculinity, the focus on my sexuality here is gossipy and even strangely homophobic, since it appears to be used to discredit me in some way. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 15:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Have you published that you describe yourself as bisexual anywhere? We can't really cite a Wikipedia talk page, but we could potentially cite writing of yours, a blog post, etc. per WP:ABOUTSELF. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

About Donovan

Donovan says that his main point is masculinism and nativism or tribalism, he reject gay culture. I'm sure that Donovan is not gay but he is androphile and mysoginyst. Once he said that he don't hate woman as a sexual partner but he hate the new role of the women in the society. I'm not able to get you in contact with Donovan because of the privacy and other rules, is not the case to put contacts on Enternet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.54.100.238 (talk) 11:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

How does this contradict him having attended gay clubs and prides? Regarding his sexuality: I'm not really keen on getting in contact with him and even if I were and did, it wouldn't be of any use for the article (see WP:V). You are welcome to participate in the discussion on how to describe his sexuality above. Caius G. (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

A Note from Jack Donovan

My name is Jack Donovan and I am the subject of this article. To verify this, you can contact me through the link on my web site.

This is article is not NPOV. It's defamatory. As an American author, it doesn't even list all of my books, or provide links to my web site or youtube channel or instagram -- all of which would lead any reasonable reader to conclude my life's work has been grossly mischaracterized. This article is, itself, a personal attack.

This article seems to be solely about my sexuality and associations with groups and individuals I no longer support or have any association with.

There was a similar article about me on Wikipedia several years ago, which was eventually deleted by Wikipedia managers because it was so obviously biased.

I am not a White Nationalist and I don't support White Nationalism. I cut ties with anyone associated with the "Alt Right" after Charlottesville when it became obvious that the movement was going full retard on WN causes that I do not agree with.

I do not support racism of any kind, and my books are read by men all around the world from every racial and ethnic background.

I left the Wolves of Vinland over 2 years ago, and have no contact with anyone in that group.

If anyone is actually interested in what I have to say about any of the things discussed on this page, there is an FAQ on my web site.

[1]

{{POV-check}} {{Multiple issues}} {{Tone}} {{Undue weight|Personal life and beliefs}} Jack Donovan Official (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


This "he prefers to write about the sexiness of violent maschismo" for instance is a phrase used by a journalist, but she is not quoted, so that it seems as if it is something I actually said. I have never in my life written "I prefer to write about the sexiness of violent machismo." Jack Donovan Official (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Links to the actual content I produce:

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfR6vcvegX4_ZPNN6v3TrXw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/starttheworld/ My Actual Web Site: https://www.jack-donovan.com/sowilo/ My book, The Way of Men, that's been translated into several foreign languages and sold over 100,000 copies which is not even mentioned on this page which is supposedly about my work. https://www.amazon.com/Way-Men-Jack-Donovan-ebook/dp/B007O0Y1ZE/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=the+way+of+men&qid=1613662301&sr=8-1

Jack Donovan Official (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Jack Donovan Official, thanks for commenting here with your concerns. First we should verify your account—do you mind sending an email from an official email address to [email protected] ? If you comment here once you've done so I can verify. While you do that, I'll take a read through this article and the sourcing to get a better take on things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.jack-donovan.com/sowilo/bio/positions/
@GorillaWarfare:

This is super minor, but in terms of flow...

Donovan formed the Cascadia chapter of the group in 2015.[14][2] Donovan left the Wolves of Vinland in 2018, later saying his association with the group was during a "dark chapter" in his life.[14] In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center added the Wolves of Vinland to their list of hate groups, classifying it as a neo-völkisch hate group.[15]

...maybe this sentence should be moved to the end of this paragraph.

"Donovan left the Wolves of Vinland in 2018, later saying his association with the group was during a "dark chapter" in his life.[14]"


Jack Donovan Official (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Donovan Official: My choice to order it that way was based on the fact that I wasn't sure if you left the Wolves before or after the SPLC classification, and putting it after seemed to more heavily imply the SPLC classified them as a hate group before you left. However I'm happy enough to reorder it the way you're suggesting—do you know the actual chronology? GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:I left the organization officially in early December 2018, so I would assume the SPLC made that designation early in the year. In fact, they may have made it earlier. When I was in the group I actually emailed their general counsel to dispute that characterization, since the group was never really an active political group that engaged as a group in political activities or marches or organized violence. Naturally, they disagreed, and they never take anyone off that list. I just made the suggestion about the order of the sentences because it would show a beginning in the first sentence and an end in the last sentence of the paragraph. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just confirmed that they were on the SPLC's list by December 2018, so my concerns about possibly misleading people are assuaged. I'll make the change. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

This is a dispute request. Much of the information on this page is inaccurate and incomplete. For example, a number of the published works by this author are not included on the page. Furthermore, the fact that the page is protected from editing suggests the person(s) involved in creating it knowingly added such incomplete information and seek to control it without cause. I am requesting the editing restrictions be lifted so those who have reliable, sourced information can update the page for a more accurate and up to date description. Tactical Guitarist (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

The page is protected for persistent disruptive editing. You may instead propose changes here, which will be evaluated and added into the article. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Descriptors

Caption text
Source Date Descriptor Link
Salon 2013 anti-feminist writer and “advocate for the resurgence of tribalism and manly virtue” [1]
The Atlantic 2018 a “masculinist” writer who has ties to members of the alt-right and is heavily involved in Wolves of Vinland [2]
The Cut 2017 a 42-year-old skinhead icon and right-wing extremist [3]
Slate 2017 <very expansive discussion> [4]
Oregon Live 2017 well-known white nationalist [5]
SPLC 2016 pseudo-academics that have coalesced around Richard Spencer at Radix Journal [6]
PRA 2020 In 2014, Jack Donovan, who would go on to become a significant far-right author and thought leader [7]
PRA 2019 "male tribalist" [8]

Jlevi (talk) 10:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

These descriptors, even from hostile sources, are cherry-picked to deceive casual readers.
Oregon Live || 2017 || well-known white nationalist || [9]
This article also included a statement by me, added after the fact, by the Oregonian when I contacted the editors about sloppy and defamatory editorializing.
"Donovan disputes the label white nationalist. In an essay "Why I am not a White Nationalist," he says he no longer considers himself "alt-right" in any way. "What is done is done, but I will not allow White Nationalists to publish or use my work in the future," he posted Aug. 19."
Why was this not included? That was from 2017.
|PRA || 2020 || In 2014, Jack Donovan, who would go on to become a significant far-right author and thought leader || [10]
While this article was written by an active member of AntiFa [11], and can't possibly meet the standards of NPOV because he is a paid partisan propagandist -- to his credit, the author reached out to me while writing it, and also added:
"Donovan cut ties with the Alt Right after the deadly Unite the Right gathering in Charlottesville, Virginia, in 2017, and parted ways with the Wolves the following year; he now says he wishes “White Nationalists would burn my books and stop following me.”[10]"
Why is this not included?
Jack Donovan Official (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Why not this?

What is wrong with the sentence, "Jack Donovan has authored several books on masculinity."? Why was that removed? What is wrong with the edit I tried to make that references a blog that summarizes of one his books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Tactical Guitarist: I didn't remove the sentence, I just moved it to the "Books" section. As for referencing a blog, if you tried to reference anything it wasn't successful—none of your edits added citations. If you need help citing sources, check out Help:Introduction_to_referencing_with_Wiki_Markup/3. However please see WP:BLOGS for information about citing blogs as sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gorilla Warfare: Got it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 01:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tactical Guitarist: As I worried it might be, that blog is not a reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gorilla Warfare: What makes a blog a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tactical Guitarist (talk • contribs) 01:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
See the link I provided. They basically never are when it comes to biographies of living people, except for people writing about themselves (and even then they can only be used to support very basic facts). Sometimes reliable sources will call part of their site a "blog" and sometimes those can still be used (see WP:RSBLOG) but that is not the case here—this is a pickup artistry website and not a reliable source with editorial oversight. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Gorilla Warfare: Not sure which blog he cited, but the idea that the majority of the sites cited have "editorial oversight" concerned with anything other than creating clickbait is a bit fanciful. I've only ever received one call/email from a fact-checker. There are a lot of erroneous claims in this article made about my audience and how my work is received, and in that instance, it really doesn't have to be NYT. Just because someone published a feeling about my audience doesn't make it a fact. I'll address this in a separate section. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
This was the blog post. I understand that you disagree that some of the sources used here are reliable, but Wikipedia consensus does currently define them as such. The Cut and Slate are both green at RSP. Salon is yellow, but is currently only being used to provide a date at which you spoke at the National Policy Institute, so I think is uncontroversial usage. The SPLC is generally reliable but should be attributed for statements of opinion and hate group labeling, which is currently being done on this page. Also, just as a heads up, there is no space in my username, so your pings won't work. Not a big deal either way, though, I have this page on my watchlist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Sources

Onel5969, check out the sources above. For example, this 2017 article, this 2007 article show sustained coverage in a variety of contexts, and the multiple pages on him in each of the listed books seem to constitute significant coverage in their own right. Jlevi (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The poorly researched and hysterical rant by (Personal attack removed) Donna Minkowitz is given undue weight here to describe the author's views. A very large portion of the text here is quoted from her opinions, observations, and highly emotional impressions. What are the rest of the author's views? From this piece, he seems to write only about race and sexuality -- which is the opposite impression that anyone would get if they actually read it for something other than Buzzfeed quality yellow journalism.

Jack Donovan Official (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to article talk pages, including that of your own article. Please don't use this talk page to denigrate journalists. As for your concerns about undue weight, I'll keep your concern in mind while working through this—I've only just been able to get a start at it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:FWIW I think I described the journalist in a way she'd describe herself in terms of sexuality and politics. I didn't say anything worse than what she said about me, and she's also a public figure and equally fair game. Her ideological biases and positions are relevant in terms of undue weight. She's not "objective" or a "reporter." She's an activist. --Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
We err on the side of caution when it comes to BLP, and it read like denigration to me. She has been published in a reliable source, and I will point out that biased sources are allowed so long as they are reliable. Her opinions are now properly attributed in-text, and I personally feel the weight is appropriate with my changes. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

On Audience and "The Manosphere"

@GorillaWarfare: First of all, thank you for improving this page. While I have read your profile and realize that you have your own agenda, I do appreciate the integrity you have demonstrated in cleaning up unfounded and uncited assertions and blatant attempts to mislead. I actually like Wikipedia and find it extremely useful in my work and have donated to it several times. So I am glad to see that it's not yet a place where anyone with an axe to grind can just write whatever they want. I also realize that you are limited by Wikipedia standards and that the majority of the sources on my recent work are podcasts and YouTube videos and there is a lack of written material for you to reference. The written material that exists is extremely one-sided, but that says as much about the state of the media in 2021 as it does about me or my work. Anyway, thanks again for working on bringing it up to par. We may disagree on many things, and I recognize that any article about me is going to include controversies and evaluations of my work by ideological opponents. The best I can reasonably hope for is to see it balanced -- and not look like an article that cats wrote about dogs.

The current edit is much improved and the opening is much fairer. There is still a lot of unnecessary repetition of the same ideas and characterizations by the same people. (Male supremacist is a subjective value judgment, not a way I would characterize myself. I don't really believe anything more radical than what any average man before the year 2000 believed.)

Example of repetition:

  • Donovan formed the Cascadia chapter of the group in 2015.[11][2] Donovan left the Wolves of Vinland in 2018, later saying his association with the group was during a "dark chapter" in his life.[11] In 2018, the Southern Poverty Law Center added the Wolves of Vinland to their list of hate groups, classifying it as a neo-völkisch hate group.[12]
  • He also said that he chose to be a member of the alt-right and the Wolves of Vinland during a difficult time in his life, and that he was trying to put those associations behind him.[11]

All of this is accurate and fair, but I think it is reasonable to marry these commentaries on the Wolves and say this only once.

The Manosphere

I see that you have an interest in "The Manosphere" and think it is strange that my place in this community is not mentioned. In one place the article mentions that my audience is primarily gay men. This is false. In fact, I'd say over 80% of my audience is straight men. In another, Lyons is cited as saying that "He is sometimes seen to be a part of the manosphere, though the prevalence of homophobia in the manospherian communities has affected his reception."

I'm a regular speaker at the 21 Convention and have been for years. The Way of Men is considered foundational for many in that community, and I have always been welcomed there with open arms and treated very well. The article mentions my speeches at NPI and AmRen years ago, but I spoke at the 21 Convention in 2017, 2018, and in 2019. The first video also shows Anthony Dream Johnson -- president of the Manosphere, saying I'm the world's best masculine philosopher.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhsE6KDo5Gs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cpkgz7xKjI


I am also a regular guest on a wide range of podcasts ranging from Art of Manliness and Order of Men to any number of "manosphere" related podcasts, as well as tactical, fitness, and martial arts-related shows. I also have my own show, many episodes of which are available on YouTube.

https://www.youtube.com/user/mrjdonovan

I'm not sure what the best "Wikipedia-friendly" way to reference this is, but it is a big part of the arc of my career and shows what I have been doing since I disavowed the Alt-right. (I actually started out in the Manosphere, as you referenced correctly, at The Spearhead.)

My work has evolved over the years and so have my views. I can't step out of rooms that I walked into or pretend I didn't walk into them. But I do think that fairness and accuracy demand that what I am doing now is also well represented.

--Jack Donovan Official (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate all this additional context. You are absolutely correct that we are somewhat limited by what sources have chosen to pay attention to, and it is unfortunately natural for some of the best-quality sources (books and academia) to lag behind by a few years, so your article unfortunately seems to stop right around 2018. We can definitely try to supplement a small amount with primary sources, but are pretty limited in the amount of detail we can go into without secondary sourcing.
Regarding In one place the article mentions that my audience is primarily gay men, the article says "Minkowitz wrote that Donovan's primary fanbase consists of gay men interested in his hypermasculine style and straight men from the manosphere and pickup artist cultures" (meaning that these two groups make up your primary fanbase, not that one or the other is itself your primary fanbase). We could perhaps reverse the order of the two groups if you think that would be clearer.
Regarding I see that you have an interest in "The Manosphere" and think it is strange that my place in this community is not mentioned. It is mentioned in the second sentence of the "Masculinity" section. I will look into the additional details you've provided.
Your comments about the repetition and missing info on the manosphere are useful, I will incorporate the feedback. I am glad you are finding this version of the article to be a fairer piece. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Yes, reversing the order would be clearer and closer to the truth. I don't cater to a gay male audience at all and pulled Androphilia out of print years ago. --Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Donovan Official: Have you or reliable sources written about your choice to pull Androphilia out of print? Might be worth mentioning in the article if so. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:It is mentioned on my FAQ on my web site.

[1] Jack Donovan Official (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the pointer to that, I've added a note about it being removed from print. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.jack-donovan.com/sowilo/bio/positions/

Photo

@Jack Donovan Official: I just tagged this article as needing a photo, but since you're actively watching this page I figured I'd ask if you have any interest in donating one. We do require photos to be released by the copyright owner (that is, typically the photographer rather than the subject of the photo), but if you have any photos you've taken yourself or to which the photographer has formally transferred to you complete rights, they could be used. You would need to be willing to release them under a free license, meaning they could be reused by anyone free of charge. If you're interested, you can upload a photo you took yourself to Wikimedia Commons, or I can help you release a photo to which you own the rights but that you did not take yourself. If you're not interested, that's fine too. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: I take most of my own photos, so that shouldn't be a problem. I will look for an appropriate one and get back to you. Thank you.

--Jack Donovan Official (talk) 18:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Great! Give a shout if you run into any issues uploading them, happy to help. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:
Author Jack Donovan with Vajra/Keraunos

Might as well make it interesting. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for donating the photo! What is the symbol behind you? A Google search for "Eye with plus symbol" is turning up results on farsightedness... GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The symbol behind Jack is a sun cross. There are many historical versions of sun crosses. The one in the photo was created by Jack. There is a decent wiki page on the history and importance of similar historical pieces.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_cross

From is website: The “Solar Vision” Symbol

You’ll find this symbol on my work and throughout this web site. It represents my own synthesis of the overseeing eye and a sun wheel.

This particular design is modeled after a Bronze Age sun wheel pendant originally found in Zürich, dated to the 2nd Millennium B.C. It was probably a Celtic symbol, as the Celts moved though the area around that time, so it likely would have been associated with the Celtic god Taranis, who was a god of thunder and lightning, not unlike Zeus or warrior gods like Thor or Indra. Lightning is often seen as a solar weapon, or as demonstrating the power of the god who rules the sky. Taranis was also depicted holding a wheel. The sun wheel, sun cross, or Sonnenkreuz symbolizes not only the sun, but motion and momentum, turning and action — referencing the spoked wheel and the terrible glory of the battle chariot. The sun itself is often represented by another deity, sometimes male (Helios), sometimes female (Sól/Sunna). However, the primary patriarch is sometimes believed to be “the eye in the sky.”

I created this hybrid symbol for my book, A More Complete Beast, to represent the concept of “solar vision,” which has evolved in my mind to represent and include the concepts discussed above.

Cleantheshymn (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Image

I have uploaded a cropped version of the original photo. The purpose of such images is to provide a neutral way for people to identify the subject. They are not intended for decoration or promotion. The full image is far too busy, as it includes many arbitrary details, and is also far too difficult to parse on smaller screens. The cropped image is still substandard, as the unnatural and dramatic lighting is distracting. If the various symbols used in the original photo are encyclopedically significant, this should be better explained, with reliable and independent sources in the body of the article. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

GrayfellAs mentioned in the above discussion and referenced on the author's site, the symbols used are significantly related to the author's philosophy and written work. Many pages use professionally and artificially lit photographs/headshots of actors. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As I said, the significance of these symbols would need to be supported by WP:IS in the body. The goal of this project is to summarize reliable sources, mainly independent sources. This article is not an extension of the author's website. Other articles also have problems, but that's besides the point. As for headshots, yes, I cropped the picture to make it slightly closer to a neutral headshot. An actor's headshot is intended to display the appearance of the actor, not the photographer's skill, nor the photograph's set-design. That's what we're looking for here as well. Photos in articles should provide basic information first. Any decorative value is secondary. Grayfell (talk) 23:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The cropped image seems fine to me. I agree the larger one was a bit busy, and it's unusual to have full-body photos as lead photos rather than headshots (except perhaps in the case of sports players when photographed playing their sport). I don't share your concerns with the lighting, which, though dramatic, is considerably better than a lot of the candid photos and stills from videos that we sometimes see in bios. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Foreign Sources?

What is the policy on citing foreign sources? The Way of Men should be a heavier part of this article -- as it is my most popular and significant book by far. However, I realize that while I have been on hundreds of podcasts and so forth to discuss it in-depth, and it has been written about in a positive way that engages the actual content of the book at the popular site Art of Manliness and many other sites, it suffers from a lack of Wiki-approved sources that are citable.

The Italian translation, La via degli uomini, was covered by a popular glossy magazine in Italy that is sold on newsstands.

The issue is 29 aprile 2020 | Panorama

https://www.panorama.it/abbonati/costume/il-ritorno-del-maschio-alfa

[[15]]

Jack Donovan Official (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

We allow non-English sources to be used, though we prefer English sources since they are easier to verify: WP:NONENG. The bigger hurdle to using non-English sources is finding an editor who reads the language who can either translate the source or incorporate information from it into the article. Sadly I don't know Italian, and we avoid using Google Translate for these kinds of things since it's easy for machine translation wonkiness to introduce factual errors. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:48, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:Fair enough. That may be something for the future, then. However, at the moment, I think one could reasonably add it as a reference citable to prove the book was also published in Italian, as the current sentence only lists French, Portuguese, and German. (It was also published in Polish and I actually sell a Spanish version on Amazon). Are you open to creating a Bibliography section like the one seen here? [[16]] If so, I can provide the ISBNs. I can also provide ISBNs for foreign translations as well, as I have copies of all of them. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I've just added a {{refideas}} template to the top of this page suggesting the source, and mentioning that it's in Italian, so if any Italian-speaking editors happen across the page they'll see it. As for the bibliography, let me just check if there's a policy on that—I'm not sure if we typically include bibliographies when all books by an author are already mentioned in prose, but it may be that we do. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: Thanks. I think ultimately that will be more appropriate. Blood-Brotherhood is interesting but not that important and A Sky Without Eagles is just an essay collection. (I still have to go back and check through it because I think a couple of things Donna said may be misleading or factually incorrect with regard to what I actually wrote in the "Brotherhood" essay.) Eventually, I think the meat of the article will be about The Way of Men and my new book, Fire in the Dark. But that could be down the road. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 23:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Since Wikipedia isn't a platform for PR or book promotion, the meat of the article will be based on reliable, independent sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Circling back on this, I couldn't find anything saying one way or the other whether bibliographies should be included when all of their contents are mentioned in prose. I'll go ahead and add one; I do find them to be a useful thing to have at a glance. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added a Works section. Give a shout if anything looks off. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)


@GorillaWarfare: Thanks. Yes, I have always found them helpful myself. That's what I go to first if I am trying to find a release date for a book, etc. in an author's biography.

Blood-Brotherhood was originally published in 2009. The second edition that is available on Amazon now was repackaged and repurposed for a general male audience without the "androphiles" context (because it is one of the few comprehensive treatments of the subject). That is the one that was released in 2012 after The Way of Men. The first edition ISBN-13 : 978-0578030708

Apparently, I can edit the article now myself, but I'm going to leave all of the edits up to you, GorillaWarfare, to keep the exchange in good faith.

Ah, good catch, I've fixed that. As for editing the article yourself, that's a good call to leave it up to other editors—WP:COI strongly encourages article subjects to suggest changes on the talk page rather than edit the articles directly. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Cleantheshymn

Donna Minkowitz

Any reference to the Donna Minkowitz article should be removed. She makes assertions that are not backed up concerning Donovan’s audience. The claim that half of his audience is gay men seems to come from an opinion of Donovan by one of her gay male friends, who she quotes without name in the article. There is no other proof to back up her assertion...just the opinions of one gay man.

Her claim that the other half of his audience comes from the manosphere and the pickup communities is totally meritless. She makes no attempt to justify this claim. There is no reference. This is opinion only...and an inaccurate one at that. The fact that you use a meritless article to provide links to manosphere snd pickup artist wiki articles seems highly problematic. This gives intentional weight to the highly biased claims of Minkowitz.

Additionally, in her article she talks about Donovan’s physical appearance in a sexualised way. This is highly offensive and another indication of her extreme bias.

Finally, Minkowitz’s piece makes up the entire "Reception" section of the article. You are relying completely on the highly biased and opinionated article for Donovan’s public perception. This is entirely one sided and grossly misleading. The Slate article is clearly highly biased. According to you, Minkowitz only is the arbiter of the public perception of Jack Donovan in its entirety. The Minkowitz Slate piece does not meet Wikipedia’s guidelines for source material. Cleantheshymn (talk) 15:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Slate is a reliable source (WP:RSP#Slate), and any opinions are attributed in-text as is appropriate. You seem to be under the impression that biased sources are not usable, which is not the case--no source is devoid of bias. If you know of other reliable sources that discuss Donovan's reception that ought to be added, feel free to suggest them (or add them yourself), but there is no reason for the Minkowitz piece to be removed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Books - The Way of Men

The short paragraph on Donovan’s seminal work, The Way of Men, doesn’t accurately describe the work or its influence. This book is the thrust of all of his work. It’s both highly regarded and highly influential. The paragraph both makes reference to and quotes the highly biased opinions of Matthew Lyons. In fact, as a source, a tremendous amount of deference is given to Matthew Lyons. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Wikipedia article rely so heavily on the opinions of one person. The short paragraph on the Way of Men grossly oversimplifies its content and mischaracterises its intent, which is to help men build thoughtful, impactful, and meaningful lives. Cleantheshymn (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

[citation needed] for all of this. We can't make changes based solely on your opinions, which is all you are presenting here.
Regarding the amount of citations to Lyons' work, they are high-quality sources that go into great detail about Donovan, so I have used them significantly. If you know of other similarly high-quality sources that ought to be added, I'd be happy to know about them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Books - Blood Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Passage

The paragraph on Donovan’s book, Blood Brotherhood and Other Rites of Male Passage mischaracterises the work as a sort of reference for homosexual men looking for alternative bonding ceremonies. Though a blood ceremony might be used to mark a relationship between two homosexual men, this theme is not the thrust of the book, which is intended to provide both a historical context and modern application for blood brotherhood ceremonies of men regardless of sexuality.

As I stated previously, the highly biased and opinionated views of Matthew Lyons are used to back up this paragraph. Why are the opinions of one man given so much deference? His writing on Mr. Donovan clearly has a particular intent. It would be understandable to cite Mr. Lyons in regards to opinion, but he is being cited for factual information regarding Jack Donovan’s books, which speak for themselves and should be allowed a neutral view. Cleantheshymn (talk) 15:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying my reply from above: [citation needed] for all of this. We can't make changes based solely on your opinions, which is all you are presenting here.
Regarding the amount of citations to Lyons' work, they are high-quality sources that go into great detail about Donovan, so I have used them significantly. If you know of other similarly high-quality sources that ought to be added, I'd be happy to know about them.
Any detail about his books, aside from the basic facts of their existence, should be sourced to reliable, independent sources, and cannot be based in Donovan's own statements as you are suggesting. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sexuality

Throughout this piece, in nearly every paragraph, Mr. Donovan’s sexuality is highlighted. This might be appropriate if the bulk of his writing were on sexuality. It, though, is not. He wrote a single book, Androphilia, on the intersection of homosexuality and masculinity. This book has pulled out of print because it is not applicable to Donovan’s more universal work for men on masculinity. Jack Donovan writes broadly on masculinity for men. Though this includes homosexual men, he does not write for them specifically. The thrust of the article makes great effort to tie Mr. Donovan to a homosexual cause. This is grossly and intentionally misleading.

The original Wikipedia article made a heavy handed attempt to tie Donovan to sexuality as if were his cause at best, and his obstacle at least. It went to great lengths to show him at odds with the subject of his expertise, masculinity, by constantly referencing his perceived sexuality. To me, and I believe to even the most casual reader of his work, this looks like an intentional smear, with the intent of lessening his importance as a highly regarded expert on masculinity. The new revised article still shows this bias as a central theme. Cleantheshymn (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The reliable sources I have seen devote quite a lot of discussion to Donovan's sexuality, and seem to find it quite relevant to their analysis of his work. Wikipedia necessarily reflects how reliable sources describe the coverage. As is becoming a theme in my replies to you, if you know of independent sources that take a different angle in their discussion of Donovan, please feel free to present them, but we cannot revise this article based on the fact that you personally disagree with the RS coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Perception

“Perception” is a broad category. By default it indicates societal perception, perception at large, or at least perception by a broader crowd than a single individual...for Jack Donovan it might include the perception of his readers in the form of easily available information concerning online reviews ...and the specific reviews, especially of his best known work (The Way of Men) by some of his peers. Donna Minkowitz is one person, giving her opinion only. Yet, the perception section is totally based on the opinion piece she wrote for Slate. If you count her friend, whom she briefly quotes, then the piece contains the opinions of two people. Again, she claims that half of Mr. Donovan’s followers are homosexual and primarily interested in him because of his appearance. Her only evidence for this is her friend who says in her article that he finds Mr. Donovan attractive.

Using the Minkowitz source for the opinion section seems like a desire to include her highly biased opinion when there is no other place in the article to do so. I realise perception, by nature deals with opinion. But, unless this broad category is renamed “The Perception of Donna Minkowitz,” or is modified to include the perceptions of other people or groups of people, it is broadly misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleantheshymn (talk • contribs) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Information about Donovan's reception and the makeup of his fanbase is relevant to this article. Again, if you have additional sources that discuss this topic, please do present them. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Lyons

I don’t deny Mr. Lyons credibility. But, I do question the number of sources used in the Wikipedia article. It relies heavily, nearly entirely, on Matthew Lyons. As a source itself, Mr. Lyons book is perfectly appropriate. But, the article’s reliance on this source doesn’t produce a particularly well rounded piece. As a result, in large part, it reads as more of a book report than a well researched Wikipedia page. I don’t doubt the quotes and citations attributed to Matthew Lyons are accurate. But, if you remove his work as a source, the Wikipedia piece disappears. That is test of whether any well researched piece relies too heavily on a single author or her work alone. Remove the works in question. Does the piece still stand? Mr. Donovan’s article fails this test. On the other hand, remove the scant group of other sources and what remains? A book report on Mr. Lyons work. If you were to rename the article “A Critique of Jack Donovan by Matthew Lyons, Including a Few Additional Resources,” you’d have a accurate piece. Cleantheshymn (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, do you have additional reliable sources you would like to suggest be used? I will note that the majority of statements sourced from Lyons' work are not critical, but simple statements of fact (for example, which books he authored and when, publications he has written for, etc.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sally Rowena Munt’s conjecture that Jack Donovan suffers from internalized homophobia doesn’t seem appropriate for the Reception section. It represents the opinion of one writer. If this is the standard, absolutely anything said about Mr. Donovan could be included under “Reception.” Can you help me to understand the rationale? Cleantheshymn (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have any suggestions for a better location for it, I'm all ears. But the writing of an accomplished academic in a peer reviewed journal is worth inclusion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

One last request...and I appreciate all your hard work here...though we may disagree on a few points...

Could you provide a link to Mr. Donovan’s wikiquote page? There isn’t an option in the template, and I don’t want to make a mistake by trying to create a spot for it. I assume the introductory language should match on each article. I can take care of that. Cleantheshymn (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure. As for the intro text, I honestly don't know what Wikiquote's standards are for that, I don't edit that project. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your hard work. And thanks for being so helpful with my questions. Could we move the Munt reference to Views>Gay Rights>? It makes sense there. If it’s the second paragraph in that series, I think it would flow well. Cleantheshymn (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I think that makes sense. And thanks for saying so, I appreciate your collaboration here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I just saw that you had added the wikiquote link to external links when I added Donovan’s website link under his photo. That’s where I was hoping to add his wikiquote link as well. There was a box in the template for the website. I know I can create a box for the wikiquote link. I was asking for assistance because I haven’t done that before. I’m sure I can figure it out. Cleantheshymn (talk) 16:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Links to pages in other Wikipedia projects don't go in the infobox, they should only go in the external links section (and of course in the interproject links autogenerated in the page sidebar). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Your James O’Meara link under >Views>GayRights is for an English WWII RAF Officer. I don’t believe the James O’Meara referenced in the source has a Wikipedia entry. Happy to remove it, but wanted you to see first. Cleantheshymn (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Oops, good catch, will fix. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

German sources / Reception

A paragraph citing German sources has just been added under "Reception." I’ve made several suggestions for clarity and correctness.

The writer refers to the "political movement’s concept of gender." While it might be correct to refer to Donovan’s concept of gender (though this is not where his originality lies - traditional gender concept is not his invention), equating it, or Donovan, to a political movement is incorrect ...not least because it seems to reference a theme or concept that is not part of the wiki article. There is no antecedent for "political movement’s concept of gender."

The writer mentions that Donovan has been positively received by the far right. While sources are sighted which criticise him, sources that see his views as positive are not. The mention of positive perception by the far right should be removed unless it can be reliably sourced.

The author says Jack Donovan has been featured in several German language publications, yet only two are cited. This should be changed to precisely two.

Here is my revised paragraph. It is in keeping with the intent, maintains the cited sources, and cleans up the language so that it trades as standard English.

"In two German language publications, Donovan’s views on gender have been criticized by historian Volker Weiß and author and journalist Simon Volpers. Weiß calls Donovan an "apocalyptic misogynist tending to be a Neanderthal".[23] Volpers, in a work focused on Donovan’s biography as well as on his political and gender-theoretical assertions, identifies Donovan’s views as a "variation of extreme right-wing conceptions of masculinity,” opining that Donovan‘s writings are not of any essential novelty.[24]"

Finally, I’m not familiar with either of the two sources, or authors, beyond what I can research online. I do not know if they meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. Cleantheshymn (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleantheshymn, the Volpers book also asserts that Donovan's work is regarded well among German far-right writers here (p. 20). While the author is a journalist and the publisher not an academic one, I think it is reasonably reliable for this claim. Volker Weiß should be seen as an expert on the far-right, see also his article on the German Wikipedia, even if he is not currently affiliated with an academic institution. Best, Caius G. (talk) 19:20, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Cleantheshymn (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Cleantheshymn, sorry, I forgot to respond to your criticism of the number of sources. I've struck the "mainly" which would be WP:OR or WP:SYNTH and added media ("literature and media"), as the Volpers book mentions interviews in right-wing magazines. Caius G. (talk) 19:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Can we clean up the language? It reads as non standard and written by someone without native fluency. It’s not at all standard to use "literature" in this way. The grammar and syntax seems very out of place in the context of the larger entry. I think "German language literary publications and media" is understandable and correct.

In German language publications and media though Donovan has been perceived positively by the far right, he has been met mostly with criticism for the movement’s political views on gender. Historian Volker Weiß calls Donovan an "apocalyptic misogynist tending to be a Neanderthal".[23] Author and journalist Simon Volpers, in a work focused on Donovan’s biography as well as on his political and gender-theoretical assertions, identifies Donovan’s views as a "variation of extreme right-wing conceptions of masculinity,” opining that Donovan‘s writings are not of any essential novelty.[24] Cleantheshymn (talk) 20:03, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nominate for Deletion?

I've ignored this page for a few weeks because I've had other things to work on. It seems that as, in the past, it continues to be a target for edits by obsessive weirdos. As it stands, despite the fact that I am followed and my work is appreciated by tens of thousands of men, this page is basically a list of quotations written by angry feminists and known members of AntiFa. A link from Art of Manliness, a Mormon-based site reviewing a pagan book, which is over a decade old and which is read by hundreds of thousands of men, was dismissed as a source -- but any mention from any obscure and rarely read feminist academic journal is embraced and applauded. A book doesn't sell hundreds of thousands of copies without positive commentary. While the edits to the page have made it a little less like a Buzzfeed hit piece, if this page can't meet NPOV standards, there is no reason for it to exist. 2603:3026:41B:4F00:617F:8C9:9FAC:C0E3 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Guide_to_deletion#Deletion_process if you'd like to take it to AfD. Jlevi (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I would note WP:SURMOUNTABLE, though, before beginning such a discussion. 2603, if you would like to begin a discussion to gain additional input on the usability of Art of Manliness as a reliable source, WP:RSN would be the place to do so. Regarding A book doesn't sell hundreds of thousands of copies without positive commentary, feel free to find and suggest these sources here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:07, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: If no positive or neutral sources are acceptable by Wikipedia standards, then it follows that it is impossible for an NPOV article to be written. This article comes in at about 2500 words, and aside from one passing remark by Chuck P., all citations are from radical feminists, gossip columnists, and active members of AntiFa. You can find men talking about and recommending my work all over the Internet, and I am featured in YouTube videos and podcasts with hundreds of thousands of viewers and listeners all the time. However, I recognize that there is a lack of any positive traditional "print" coverage. This is a problem in my market space that I am actually working with others to remedy. If you can't use sources that Wikipedia considers acceptable to create a fair and balanced article, then one simply cannot be created. I have never argued that criticisms of my work should not be included. Of course they should. Pros and cons should be represented. I will argue, however, that the article spends little time explaining any of the actual content of my best-known works, and serves only as a catalog of gossip, snark, and political insinuation from the very far left. It's not consistent with the better articles on controversial figures on Wikipedia, and I think as an editor, you probably know that.
I use Wikipedia all the time. In fact, an article I reference frequently -- explaining the entire history of the Vedic concept of Ṛta -- has a lower word count than the article about me, which is completely absurd. I am not that well known.
I visited the page of an author I was asked to appear on a podcast with today, Nina Power. If there is an article about me on Wikipedia that is NPOV, it should read like that and be about that length. I'm not a household name or a celebrity or a politician or someone you see on the news every day. I'm an author who has written a handful of reasonably popular books that have had a handful of articles written about them. If the article can't be edited down to a few lines (without these sleazy "personal life" sections normally reserved for nationally or internationally known figures), it should be deleted until such time as a fair and balanced page can be written. Wikipedia is not a radical feminist/antifa dossier or QRG. The only reasons for me to have a page this long are to serve an agenda and defame me personally. I believe that this new page was created with only those intents, and while I appreciate your efforts to improve it (and it is better than it was, so thank you), those intents are still being served to a far greater extent than neutral information is being provided.
Jack Donovan Official (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Donovan Official: WP:NPOV requires us to "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." This article is doing that. What NPOV does not mean is creating false balance by trying to portray positively a subject that has received exclusively critical coverage in reliable sourcing. If you would like to nominate the article for deletion at WP:AfD (or if you would like me to do so on your behalf) that is fine, but I suspect the result will be "keep" due to the significant coverage. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: The coverage is a handful of feminists and far-left activists talking to each other. If you want to keep it, and keep it at this length and depth, the intent is obviously malicious, dishonest, and driven entirely by an agenda.Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I would have expected a bit more good faith from you, given our past interactions here. But you are certainly entitled to your opinion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare: I'd like to believe that you want to make a fair and reasonable article. However, I'm not seeing you do anything at this point but expand the article to add additional and often extremely obscure radical feminist and far-left commentary and reject any balancing commentary or even a substantive discussion of my work. The article is just getting longer. A huge portion of the content comes from a far-left book by Matthew Lyons, who, as his own website states, is a regular contributor to Antifa publications. Actions speak louder than words. If you want to make the page fair, let's make it under 1,000 words with a few quotes from critics and a few quotes from others. If you want to create a piece of propaganda, leave it as it is. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:Actually, the article on me is longer than your article on the entire Manosphere. Don't you think that's a little ridiculous? Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
With the exception of two edits in mid-March to fix another editor's spelling and remove a redundant section, I haven't touched this article since late February when you were still saying it was "much improved", and that "I do appreciate the integrity you have demonstrated", so it's bizarre that you've suddenly decided my edits weren't fair after all. I've already put hours of work into this article, much of which was at your behest, and I don't have the interest or energy to take another pass at it (especially after such insults). Perhaps another editor will find the interest or, like I said, you can nominate it for deletion if you wish.
And yes, the manosphere article is far shorter than it ought to be and needs much work. That's neither here nor there on the length of your article; WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@GorillaWarfare:FWIW, I did appreciate your edits and many of them were fair and reasonable. So thank you. I'm just a little frustrated that after a few months, the bulk of the content comes from Lyons and the article continues to expand with obscure sources and references, and the actual content of my work is ignored in favor of political and sexual gossip and innuendo. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Edits (New - March/April 2021)

Regarding this paragraph, I wanted to double-check it first, but this statement repeats a lie:

"In the book, Donovan put forward his support for "pan-secessionism", an idea in which men would form racially segregated, small, decentralized "homelands". In these all-white "autonomous zones", said Donovan, men would control political life, with women "not permitted to rule or take part".[6]"

I went back and checked that essay. I never said "all-white" or "racially segregated." In fact, in that same essay, I expressed support for a Native American anarchist who was building his own tribe. Minkowitz lied in that statement, and I can prove it. I can link to photos of the entire essay with a copy of a current newspaper if necessary. There is no reason to repeat her imaginative fabrication. That book contains a wide variety of essays covering a wide range of topics, some of which are cited elsewhere in this article. If the words/phrases "racially" and "all-white," are removed, the statement is accurate.

Jack Donovan Official (talk) 02:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jack Donovan Official:, if the author of the cited reference is misrepresenting your work, you may want to take it up with their publisher and have it corrected. Once that happens, we can correct the citation in your article. Wikipedia doesn’t use primary sources, so you will need to find a published work that refutes her statement, or that correctly cites your work. I am aware that it’s a painful process, but this is central to Wikipedia’s guidelines of using only WP:IS and WP:RS. Ferkijel (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ferkijel and Jack Donovan Official: I'm afraid that's ... not strictly correct (and certainly hasn't been so ever since "Verifiability Not Truth" was soundly voted down a few years ago). Just because a normally reliable source writes something we are under no obligation to print it, and if it writes something that is clearly untrue, we should not print it without refutation, especially in a biography of a living person. We do not need to leave in a clear falsehood just because it's not refuted in a non-primary source. That said, though, we do need to check that it is a clear falsehood, and I don't have a copy of "A Sky Without Eagles" to check (and as a volunteer am reluctant to spend money on my editing hobby). Mr. Donovan, would you be able to make one available online? Otherwise we'll have to wait until an editor is willing to get one, which is, unfortunately, the nature of a volunteer project, work only gets done when people are willing to put in the effort. I see your offer to put up a photo of one essay from a newspaper, but that's not quite what Minkowitz writes, she says you say so in the book, which is a collection of essays, so if you merely put up one of the essays that doesn't make it clear that you don't say that anywhere in the book. --GRuban (talk) 18:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@GRuban: That is good to hear. Wikipedia editors do not reproduce entire sources within their articles, so they do make editorial decisions about which passages and claims to include, and those choices shape the content and tone of the article, and the overall impression of the casual reader. Wikipedia is not compelled to reproduce a falsehood simply because someone wrote something in a source that has been deemed acceptable. That is a moral and human choice. The quote in question came from a columnist/pundit, not a professional researcher or reviewer, and was presented in the context of a wide range of emotional opinions and several factual errors about various things. There is no reason that particular quote has to be included in the article at all. I am confident that I have never specifically said that the brotherhoods I have talked about in that or any of my books can or should only be "all-white" or always be "racially segregated," because I do not and have never believed that. She added that to make the article more sensationalistic and shocking and to fortify a particular narrative. This book is a product that people purchase. I am happy to provide a PDF or even a hard copy of the entire book to a single editor, but I obviously can't make the whole book available for free online to everyone. Please let me know how you would like me to proceed. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with both of you…mostly. We don’t have to publish everything, but the original article author thought that it was relevant, and it’s quoted from a reliable source. The point that I poorly made was that if Mr Donovan did not write what he was quoted writing, and he feels it’s libelous, injurious or misrepresents an important aspect of his work, he probably has solid grounds to have it retracted or corrected. Therefore it wouldn’t be necessary to go through this certainly more painful process through Wikipedia, as the author of the press article must prove that her work is truthful. Mr Donovan’s work is controversial, and it’s difficult for Wikipedia editors to be able to judge whether the text cited is consistent with his body of work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferkijel (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Mr. Donovan: User:GorillaWarfare has an excellent reputation around here, for several reasons, so if she's interested, she would be a great choice. But she's a volunteer as well, and is allowed not to be interested; if she's not, you can send a link to a PDF to me, and I will promise not to use it other than for verifying this Wikipedia article. I'm not quite as esteemed as the Gorilla, but do have a fair amount of Wikipedia experience, you can see it on my user page, which is linked in my signature: I've been here for 15 years, and have written most of maybe 90 articles, listed there, including one connected with the men's movement (in ... a somewhat atypical way ). Or maybe some other experienced Wikipedia editor will volunteer, I'm not special. You can contact me through the "email this user" link at the side of that page, I believe it turns into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/GRuban. What Ferkijel writes immediately above is also true, if it is debatable whether or not the book says this, I'll say as much, and bow out. --GRuban (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
I have neither the time, energy, nor interest to read the entire book to determine a claim is not made in it; I agree with Ferkijel that the better option would be to have the author publish a retraction if this is inaccurate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Slate is news blog and they’re not going to publish a retraction of a detail in an opinion piece published several years ago. They didn’t fact check it when they published it, and I’m certain no one there will care, as there is no profit in retractions. They print factually questionable partisan rhetoric every day. This isn’t 1954. They’ll wait to hear from a lawyer. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

So, back to my offer. If you email me a PDF of the book (ideally with explanation of which content is specifically being referred to, but I'll do a search anyway), and Minkowitz is clearly and unambiguously wrong, I'll say so, and will remove the incorrect statement. --GRuban (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GRuban, I will email you all my books tomorrow and you can determine for yourself if this argument accurately summarizes my life’s work, or is a predictable collection of quotes from every person who would ideologically be expected to object on general principle. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

All my books is a bit more than I asked for, but I'll search that book. Ready when you are, Mr. De Mille!--GRuban (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little hesitant, as I reviewed your page and I'm concerned that you may share the same biases as the other editors (there has been 0% ideological diversity represented so far in editors and very little in the sources or subject matter highlighted in the quotes selected). I also discovered recently that the user who originally created this page also created a page for another man who is bisexual/homosexual who has supported Republican candidates around the same time, in an obvious attempt to target him and misrepresent his views. So this page exists, as I always expected, as part of a coordinated smear effort conducted by radical partisans. However, I will assume benevolent intent here and send you the document in question, with context. (message sent) It should be clear that the source in question superimposed different ideas in the book from different essays written at different times for different audiences to support her desired narrative, and that I never advocated exactly what she said I did. And that this particular quote of hers has been selected for this article for similarly partisan and sensationalistic reasons, with explicit intent to mislead casual readers. Jack Donovan Official (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, I assume Jeff Giesea is the article Donovan is referencing as part of my dastardly smear campaign. Feel free to improve it with reliable sources. For starters, there are some on the talk page I haven't yet integrated. Jlevi (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That is correct, though until someone told me about it, I didn't even know who he was. Hollow snark ignored, the agenda is obvious. I just looked at the list of "reliable sources" and it is another list of "here's every time a left wing partisan wrote some hysterical clickbait screed designed to produce fear and outrage." The legacy media and its subsidiaries coasted on their "reliable" reputation for the early decades of the century, but they are currently being exposed at high speed as being completely willing to print outright lies and propaganda. NYT is losing defamation cases now. CNN just got exposed for doing what we all knew it was doing -- skewing facts and perceptions to create fear and manipulate the political system at the behest of its owners. Sources considered "reliable" will be redefined or the term "reliable" in this context will itself become absurd in the very near future. Or perhaps Wikipedia is simply the new frontier for propaganda, since it can't really be sued, and many of the power users are conveniently anonymous or semi-anonymous. It's almost as if they were wearing masks to hide their identities while assaulting people and handing people bricks...Time will tell.Jack Donovan Official (talk) 03:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
If you would like to discuss the Giesea article, please do so at Talk:Jeff Giesea. If you would like to discuss the reliability of CNN or the New York Times, please do so at WP:RSN (though please also note that the Project Veritas lawsuit, which I assume is what you're referring to in the case of the NYT, but which has not been won or lost by anyone yet) and CNN "exposé" have both been discussed there and dismissed. This talk page is for discussion of specific improvements to this article, not for general musings on other articles, sources that have not been used here (nor suggested to be), or Wikipedia and its editors. You certainly have plenty of other places to write about those things if you wish to. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I was discussing the known biases and the clear partisan agenda of the user who initially created this article, which is the only reason why it exists. I'm sure any news that exposes the narratives of biased material being presented as fact will be handily dismissed by the people who share the agenda of the people who created it. The same user who created the Giesea article created mine at the same time and for exactly the same reason. Both articles are political propaganda. Your key source conitinues to be a book written by known AntiFa activist (a group that has been engaged in domestic terrorism in Portland for the past year). That's all very relevant to this article. You'll always have the opportunity to simply delete the article if you decide that bothers you.Jack Donovan Official (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Donovan Official: If you think any editor—Jlevi, myself, or anyone else—is acting against policy, please bring it up at a noticeboard with evidence. If you do not think the article is neutral, and are not satisfied with the input you are getting at the talk page, there is WP:NPOVN. But you are incorrect that I can "simply delete the article"—it meets none of the criteria under which admins can speedily delete an article, and I am WP:INVOLVED with respect to it anyway as I have been a contributor. I have both explained to you how to nominate the article for deletion, and offered to do it for you, as you know.
I do not appreciate the addition to your userpage, which feels like an attempt to target outside harassment at me. I am not "overseeing" the editing of your page, nor is this even a role editors take on Wikipedia. Please remove it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jack Donovan Official: I got your email, and responded with my email address a couple of days ago, but have not received the PDF yet. As for trying to tell my politics by my articles ... if you can, I'm writing them wrong. I try to be both neutral and eclectic. But if you insist, here is one recent blatant political exception that I wrote most of. --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I got the PDF while on vacation for a week, and wanted to give a thorough accounting, which was difficult with limited Internet access. Meanwhile, it looks like User:Jack Donovan Official has been indefinitely blocked? So I guess he won't be able to answer here. But, he can read my words here, and for the other users, I read the book in the interest of verifying this request, and, I think Mr. Donovan's complaint is correct. I wrote up that more thorough analysis in User:GRuban/A_Sky_Without_Eagles, which has more detail. To summarize, just on the letter of the claim, most of the "quotes" Minkovitz is using, and we are reusing, just aren't present in the book; I don't know whether Minkowitz is confusing it with another of his books or with books by another writer, but we can't say the quotes are from A Sky Without Eagles, that's just not debatable. The statement we're making is also wrong on the general meaning of the specific words that Donovan is objecting to, though that's a subtler difference, and could be debated, but the former is sufficient. Removing. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Brett McKay / The Art of Manliness

I’ve republished a paragraph sourcing Brett McKay from The Art of Manliness. GW previously rationalised her removal of the content as blog material. The Art of Manliness is not a blog. It’s an independent online men’s magazine. McKay is one of the founders. He is also a writer for the site, which has more than 10 million unique readers every month. The source material comes from a commentary written on an interview of Jack Donovan that was performed by McKay. The publisher of the content is The Art of Manliness, LLC. Other than bias, because McKay has something neutral to say about Jack Donovan, there is no reason to exclude this content.

McKay is a noted expert on masculinity and manliness. He is an expert in the same field of study as Jack Donovan. Other than McKay, not a single source cited in this entry is from Mr. Donovan’s field. Nearly every other source is a social activist with personal views at odds with Jack Donovan. None are advocates of masculinity, though most are radical feminists.

Disallowing sources like The Art of Manliness, which is so popular and easily available that millions of people read the site regularly, on the grounds that they are not credible, and including only material written by radical feminists in such obscure and difficult to find and costly to obtain publications is a sign of extreme bias and evidence of intent to defame Mr. Donovan. The bias is no less evident than if I created an entry on a feminist subject that cited only antifeminist sources.

How is it that so many wiki entries cite sources that are behind paywalls? Mr. Donovan’s article would cost a reader hundreds of dollars if they wanted to read all the original cited material. Are active editors spending hundreds or thousands of dollars every year for online subscriptions to obtain obscure material? I would find this hard to believe. Who is paying for access to this material? I would remind everyone that copying material obtained by subscription, whether the purpose is sharing the material or not, is theft and violates subscription agreements. I would also remind everyone that sharing subscriptions is theft and violates subscription agreements. If you are a wiki editor and citing material that you do not have paid permission to read...yourself... you need to obtain an individual paid subscription if you are citing material that is behind a paywall. Cleantheshymn (talk) 18:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cleantheshymn: If you would like to bring the Art of Manliness to RSN, be my guest. I am not familiar with McKay, but have not seen any RS noting him as an "expert on masculinity and manliness". You could also discuss whether or not he is an expert source at RSN. As for your other source, please note WP:FORBESCON.
I do not appreciate your thinly veiled and completely unsubstantiated accusations that I, or other editors here, are breaking the law. If you think Wikipedia ought not to use paywalled sources, please feel free to begin a discussion at WT:V, but for now WP:PAYWALL is quite clear: Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Good news...you don’t need to be familiar with Brett McKay as an expert on masculinity...or any other topic for that matter. I am familiar with McKay and I have provided the rationale for his inclusion in the Donovan entry. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. I have collaborated on Jack Donovan’s entry and followed Wikipedia guidelines.

I have no interest or need to take any matter to RSN. The inclusion of my source follows guidelines. If you’d like to take the matter to RSN, be my guest. That is your prerogative...and also your responsibility if you don’t want McKay and The Art of Manliness included as a reliable source. It’s not my responsibility to lend credence to your gross bias. Again, though, it is your responsibility to justify your inability or unwillingness to follow wiki guidelines on reliably sourced material when it doesn’t lend credence to your non neutral narrative.

I am not taking about neutral sources...or even unbiased ones. Sources clearly have opinions that show in their work. I am talking about your personal bias which clouds your ability to produce a neutral point of view entry...or allow anyone else to do so. McKay is an appropriate source. And...again...your familiarity or unfamiliarity with McKay is meaningless.

You included Minkowitz as a reliable source. Nothing she has to say is anything but the opinion of a radical activist. She’s nothing but a shock journalist. At least part of what she’s written about Jack Donovan is fabricated...and you cited the fabrication. When the lie was brought to your attention, you refused to remove the source, hiding behind your misrepresentation of wiki guidelines. You actually had the gall to suggest that Mr. Donovan would need for Slate to print a retraction before you would remove the Minkowitz quote, though Jack Donovan has the source material to show Minkowitz is a liar who created content in her article for nothing more than shock value. Her entire career is built on what could be described most generously as hyperbole.

Again....a living person who is the subject of an entry has source material that proves Minkowitz fabricated content she attributes to the author. In response you said you had no interest in the truth and suggested an impossible path to rectifying the problem...and attempted to hide behind your misrepresentation of wiki guidelines. Your bias is blatant. Your actions belie your ability to create a neutral entry on the subject.

And, another thing....nothing I say is thinly veiled. The cost of creating this entry would be at least several hundred dollars. Given your prolific Wikipedia entry creation, you would have to have spent thousands of dollars, maybe even tens of thousands at this point, on your obscure and costly sources. If you’re that dedicated to your gross bias and non-neutrality...at least you’ve got a passion. So...I’ll say it again... don’t share paid subscriptions or content from shared subscriptions. Nothing is veiled. Cleantheshymn (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Cleantheshymn: I'm afraid that's not how it works. I could say that "Vermin Supreme is a noted expert source on headwear, just trust me", but that is not sufficient. As for RSN, I'm not interested in wasting more time arguing about who should bring the discussion there and so have opened one: WP:RSN#Is The Art of Manliness a reliable source, and is Brett McKay an expert source?. Feel free to add any comments you might have.
Your opinions on the Minkowitz source do not align with WP:RSP, where Slate is marked as generally reliable. You have also not provided any RS to support that she has published fabrications, nor has anyone apparently tried to have her or her publisher retract the supposedly inaccurate statement. GRuban has been kind enough to offer to read the entire book in question to determine if the representation is inaccurate; however in general Wikipedia takes reliable, secondary sources to be reliable and we expect them to do this type of research themselves, or publish a retraction if they have erred in it.
You should perhaps educate yourself on the various ways people can get access to paywalled sources besides paying for individual articles or individual subscriptions to databases. I do purchase the occasional book or article for my research on various Wikipedia articles, but it comes to well under $100 a year, particularly given with books I usually purchase the cheaper e-book copies rather than hard copies. Most of my access, including to the paywalled sources in this article, comes through The Wikipedia Library, which is free and above-board. Please WP:AGF in the future. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:28, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
@Cleantheshymn: If you want to shut down WP:REX, you're at the wrong place. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Came here from RSN. There's no world in which I would accept that there could possibly exist an "expert on masculinity," as masculinity is unique to each individual man. One might posit the existence of an expert on American masculinity, but I would fully expect such an expert to have academic credentials in both history and psychology.
(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I could accept there are such things as "experts in masculinity", but those are called people with PhDs in gender studies. Donovan isn't one, as prominent as he might be in the manosphere. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of Meninism

Alot of what the editor has posted information about Jack Donovan as well as other masculine support groups in a biased way. always immediatly associated it with the alt-right. while im not a mens rights activist i am an ardent supporter of mens and boys exlusive groups as well as mens studies. The editor would immediatly assosiate me with being a right winger but i actually lean to the left of the political spectrum.

jack is not a white nationalist and he has said thus multiple times. to continue to do so i think would jusst demonize masculine activists and associate them with hate groups. we dont hate women or memebers of the LGBT+ community. Most of us simply advocate for an education of positive masculinity and the protection of men's rights. this article is heavily influenced on feminie bias against positive masculine beliefs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UndercoverIrken (talk • contribs) 02:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This article makes no claims that everyone in the men's movement is a right-winger. Donovan, however, happens to be both, and the sources say so quite clearly. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 02:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2021

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: Moved. No objections to establishing the proposed primary topic after 3 weeks. (closed by non-admin page mover) Mdewman6 (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

– This Donovan is the primary topic as compared to Jack Donovan (footballer) and Jack Donovan (actor) and should be moved per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Neidstein (talk) 05:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Page view analysis. Neidstein (talk) 05:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I support this. Jlevi (talk) 20:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jack_Donovan/Archive_1&oldid=1164983281"