Jump to content

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1004582135 by 93.153.87.247 (talk) WP:TPNO
Line 76: Line 76:
:::::Perhaps, we need the input from an administrator who does not invite a conflict of interest? [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 04:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps, we need the input from an administrator who does not invite a conflict of interest? [[User:Plasmic Physics|Plasmic Physics]] ([[User talk:Plasmic Physics|talk]]) 04:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Plasmic Physics}} "Misogyny" is not a subjective opinion like "delicious" or "ugly", nor is it judgmental language. I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy. If you would like to invite outside opinions, be my guest, but I don't know where you're getting that I have a conflict of interest with MGTOW. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
::::::{{re|Plasmic Physics}} "Misogyny" is not a subjective opinion like "delicious" or "ugly", nor is it judgmental language. I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy. If you would like to invite outside opinions, be my guest, but I don't know where you're getting that I have a conflict of interest with MGTOW. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

== On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology ==

** When discussing the group's ideology, the group is rarely referenced and what references from the group appear to come from niche members or barely affiliated outliers rather than a key component. Instead what is provided is criticisms from opponents of the group, critical reception, and what appears to be a series of straw men propped up using political opponents as sources. Just as I would go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. These things belong in criticism and reception rather than under ideology. They are critics of what hidden agendas the movement may have and are certainly not what the majority consensus of the group is to as its own ideology. Recommended change would be the following for someone that still prefers to keep the definition of a group's core ideology based on their political opponent's view on their core ideology. "MGTOW members claim to believe that" followed by their own claims with regards to their own beliefs... This seems like a social media hit piece on them as is rather than an encyclopedia article as it is currently written. I would recommend additional changes. All criticisms are still relevant but they go into the "criticism" or "critical reception" category... Expressing exclusively criticism as its core ideology and using exclusively political opponents as sources is not a credible way to write pertaining to its core ideology and also is not contextually a reliable source.

Revision as of 17:15, 4 February 2021

Misogynist

I do not know much about Mgtow, but is it appropriate to address it as misogynist in the first sentence, or should it be more neutral? Again,I don’t know much about it, so I decided to ask. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 22:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoolbro: Neutrality on Wikipedia means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. It doesn't mean avoiding words like "misogynist", so long as they are reliably sourced and weighted in representation to the sourcing. MGTOW has been widely described as misogynist in reliable sources, and I've yet to see a RS disputing the descriptor, so yes, I believe it's appropriate. Full disclosure, I am the one who inserted the descriptor, but past discussions about the term on this talk page have resulted in it being retained (for example, Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 14#Misogyny). As always, if you (or anyone else) knows of reliable sources that contradict the descriptor, happy to take a look at them and discuss possibly rewording. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't label terrorist organizations as 'terrorist'. This could only be done if *everyone* agreed (and obviously their members think they are freedom fighters etc.) What usually happens, after the first few sentences, is something like "The USA, Europe etc. all consider group X a proscribed terrorist organisations" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.138.92.138 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to discuss how we describe organizations designated as terrorist groups, I'd recommend you do so on the talk pages of those articles, not here. WP:OTHERCONTENT. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how you could read the IP's statement and think he or she wishes to discuss how we describe organizations labeled as terrorist groups. "Other content" is not synonymous with "WP:OTHERCONTENT". The IP is (apparently) asking a valid question about using the word "misogynist", by drawing a parallel to how Wikipedia (generally) handles the word "terrorist". The answer is that "terrorist" is subjective — as noted, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. While I suppose misogyny may be subjective, MGTOW are openly and unapologetically misogynist, and the article boasts a plethora of reliable sources that substantiate this. Joefromrandb (talk) 08:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I personally believe that MGTOW is misogynist, but it seems somewhat off to put something so subjective in the first paragraph of their article. Ejkrause (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ejkrause (talk · contribs) भारत का प्रतिहार (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Blocked sock Chariotrider555 (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my reply above (the one timestamped 22:53, 26 October 2020). GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:20, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no source provided for the term misogynistic. I don't think those Twitter journals can be seen as a reliable source. Better to just add a [citation needed] after that statement. Anyone agree? Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely disagree that you should drive-by tag that. I think you should read the discussions here and learn more about how article ledes work.--Jorm (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool story, Bro. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Twitter journals"? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare, yes the provided link is, as it claims: a "thematic analysis of 10,280 tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users on Twitter". And then interpreted and explained in their own words. I don't think this can be used as a reliable source. MGTOW is a fairly new phenomeon so there's a lack of (good) resources. But I don't think that that should mean everyone is allowed to just fill in the blanks with their own interpretation. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aquatic Ambiance, one thing you might want to check is WP’s policies and guidelines. See WP:V WP:NOR and WP:RS. You are quite right that WP does not allow just anybody everyone to “ fill in the blanks with their own interpretation”. Reliable, secondary sources-preferably academic- are privileged. They are the ones we want to do the research and make interpretations etc. You will see the sources used in this article to support the “misogynist” label are academic sources published by reputable publishers, and are precisely the sort of references that WP editors should use.Slp1 (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aquatic Ambiance: Ah, thank you for explaining. If you look at the page numbers of the source that are being used, it is not the authors' primary research that is being cited, but rather their overview and explanation of the background. This article is making no statements based off the Twitter research those authors were doing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being a member of one of the main MGTOW forums,i can confirm the policies strictly prohibits any kind of targeted hate just because of their gender. JNoXK (talk) 09:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We don't work from personal statements by members of a group but from third party sources. The article has a clear not to say not to remove that material without agreement so please don't do that again -----Snowded TALK 09:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2020

The word *misogynist* has to be removed because if anyone chooses to break away from a group or common way of life it doesn't mean that they are instantly misogynistic. There is no FACTUAL PROOF OT THE MGTOW /idea/concept being misogynistic. To call it misogynistic there have to be real facts proven by science and studies. Thus the article right now is not correct thus its misleading and has false information. The word *misogynist* has to be removed NeutralandEqual (talk) 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done Please provide a policy-based reason or multiple reliable sources that indicate your position is the correct one. For now, a plethora of reliable sources state the organization is misogynist; in fact, I'm not sure it's possible that an ideology like that of MGtOW can be anything except misogynist.--Jorm (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

@Plasmic Physics: Please stop adding {{citation needed}} templates to sentences that have inline citations immediately following them. If you have any concerns about the citations, feel free to discuss them here, but {{citation needed}} is for missing citations. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Challenging a part of a sentence is perfectly acceptable according to WP policy. I urge you assume good faith, in that I am not ignoring inline citations.
According to WP:NVOP, I challenge the neutrality of the sources - that they take the premise of misogyny for granted rather than critically arguing the point. Furthermore, the relevant statements should ideally be restructured to reflect the contentious nature of the assertions. For example, "A and B says that y is categorizable as z." This is also supported by policy in cases such as this. Plasmic Physics (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasmic Physics: As I have explained, {{citation needed}} is for when citations are missing, and as you have just explained, you had a much more nuanced concern about the sources that was not expressed in that template. That's why I asked you to take it to the talk page rather than just dropping the tag in with no further explanation—otherwise myself and other editors would have had no clue what your actual concern was.
The sources used here are reliable, and even if they were non-neutral as you claim they are, Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. (WP:BIASEDSOURCES). If you have other reliable sources that take a different view that you would like to propose be used, feel free to present them. Without any reliable sources that contradict these statements, we do not introduce doubt or suggest that the claims are contentious.
On Wikipedia we reflect the mainstream consensus of reliable sources, and no serious researchers argue that misogyny doesn't exist. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did actually express my concern within the parameters of the template under the provided reason, namely that the generalization is unjustified (within the source). The source is objectively non-neutral as can be noted by way of the prose in which it is written, but that is besides the point. I am well aware that sources are not required to be non-neutral. However, WP editorial policies make provision for addressing non-neutrality by correctly presenting information collected from sources. Conventionally, the onus lies with the sources of an initial assertion to justify it's point before a counter-assertion must be justified. Ergo, the sources, no matter how reliable, that make the assertion that all people subscribing to this subculture are inherently misogynistic (which is what this article claims, by the way it is written), must first justify the assertion. This simply does not appear to be the case.
I have made no argument whatsoever that misogyny does not exist, and so have no idea why you would raise this point. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If multiple RS classify MGTOW as misogynist, and no sources refute the claim, we do not have to adjust the prose as you have suggested. Furthermore this claim that sources must "justify the assertion" to some arbitrary standard is not based in policy—if a source makes a claim, and that source meets our RS standards, we can and should include the claim, of course weighting it in accordance with any other sources that comment on the same topic. Again, if you have such sources that discuss whether or not MGTOW is misogynist and take a different view, please present them so that we can properly weight the statements in the article.
You objected to sources which "take the premise of misogyny for granted", perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by that. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do realise that the very definition of "misogyny" precludes anything from being definitively classified as such, since it is a subjective opinion like 'delicious' or 'ugly'? The relevant assertion is akin to the stating "Merlot tastes awful", while citing an Oxford University article. This statement in that form automatically invalidates the opinion of every person who happens to like Merlot. Likewise, asserting that adherents of this subculture are mysogynistic invalidates all contrary opinions that they are in fact not mysogynistic, including those of the adherents themselves.
In regards to you saying "We do not have to adjust the prose", might I direct you to a principle present on the the WP:NPOV article:
"Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject (or what reliable sources say about the subject), although this must sometimes be balanced against clarity. Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone. Do not editorialize. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."
Perhaps, we need the input from an administrator who does not invite a conflict of interest? Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Plasmic Physics: "Misogyny" is not a subjective opinion like "delicious" or "ugly", nor is it judgmental language. I am quite familiar with the NPOV policy. If you would like to invite outside opinions, be my guest, but I don't know where you're getting that I have a conflict of interest with MGTOW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On using criticism subject matter to define a groups ideology

    • When discussing the group's ideology, the group is rarely referenced and what references from the group appear to come from niche members or barely affiliated outliers rather than a key component. Instead what is provided is criticisms from opponents of the group, critical reception, and what appears to be a series of straw men propped up using political opponents as sources. Just as I would go to an incel site to identify what the core ideology of feminism is, I wouldn't go to a socially progressive feminist site to identify what the core ideology of a men's rights or related movement is. These things belong in criticism and reception rather than under ideology. They are critics of what hidden agendas the movement may have and are certainly not what the majority consensus of the group is to as its own ideology. Recommended change would be the following for someone that still prefers to keep the definition of a group's core ideology based on their political opponent's view on their core ideology. "MGTOW members claim to believe that" followed by their own claims with regards to their own beliefs... This seems like a social media hit piece on them as is rather than an encyclopedia article as it is currently written. I would recommend additional changes. All criticisms are still relevant but they go into the "criticism" or "critical reception" category... Expressing exclusively criticism as its core ideology and using exclusively political opponents as sources is not a credible way to write pertaining to its core ideology and also is not contextually a reliable source.