Jump to content

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JackStonePGD (talk | contribs) at 08:39, 28 April 2021 (→‎Misogynist). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
Al-Qaeda ... is a militant Sunni Islamist multi-national terrorist organization founded in 1988. So yes, we do label terrorist organizations "terrorist". (Not going to get into whether that term is used accurately or consistently.) See WP:SPADE. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2021 (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]
If hundreds of people try to remove the "misogynist" from the article, maybe there's some truth in it, what do you think? Those Twitter journals obviously aren't a reliable source. Anyway I won't bother with things like this anymore because I've promised myself not to waste time on discussions anymore, be it political or otherwise. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There have not been hundreds of people trying to remove "misogynist" from the article. But all it takes is one person to actually make a policy-based argument as to why it ought not to be included; so far that has not happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To remain at least somewhat rational, we should ask why it ought to be included rather than why it ought not to. The original study [1] cited analyzes "tweets from three of the most active MGTOW users" to proclaim that the whole movement "normalises misogynistic beliefs through online harassment". My advice is to consider the removal of said term. 20:02, 15 February 2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.185.17.191 (talk)
Please note my comment above: 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. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is possible to be anti feminist, that is, rejecting the toxic aspects of the ideology, without being misogynistic. just because you disapprove of one thing, does not mean you condone its mirror image. 2600:1017:B120:1D47:1164:4679:60E6:77C8 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but I've not seen anyone suggesting here that the two are the same. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461444819887141

Who’s on first? What’s on second. Destrypants (talk) 11:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you refer to men minding their own business as misogynist, wouldn't lesbians me classified as misogynist as well? In view of this, men going their own way has no consensual basis that they represent a misogynist community. As this would be deemed defamatory, I have amended the introduction. Wukiki (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome Wukiki. Wikipedia follows what reliable sources say about topics, not what individual editors believe or deduce. There are no concerns about defamation. As such I have reverted your edits. As mentioned in the hidden text, do not delete those descriptors without getting consensus here on the talk page. Slp1 (talk) 13:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Already removed I see. The irony of a feminist writing a defamatory and false description of a group that's only permissible to men. No point debating with these people. Wukiki (talk) 13:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@sp1, your sources are quoted from personal articles by profound feminist supporters. Perhaps the direct statement from MGOTW, or members of the group would be more relevant. Wukiki (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi.. I haven’t been active on this article so they are not my sources. The citations used are not “personal articles by profound feminist supporters” but by academic and other mainstream sources.
yes, editors could include other sources and information in this article. Do you have some sources to suggest? Please note that they need to be reliable sources … see WP:RS. That means “reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.” If you have some to suggest that would be great. Slp1 (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would also politely suggest having a closer look at the "Misogynist" descriptor. There is no doubt that there are Misogynists within the MGTOW "movement", but to call the entire movement itself misogynist requires, I feel, more evidence than is presented. I am not at all involved in MGTOW, but I have read of interpretations of it that are not misogynist in nature. The sources cited here are reliable, but could potentially also have a bias. I am, unfortunately, not familiar with any credible sources that would contradict the sources given. MGTOW is a very controversial "movement", if you could call it that, so sources supporting it are likely to be scant and not suitable for an encylopedia, but I still feel that the blanket term "Misogynist" is too strong. It could be possibly weakened slightly by an acknowledgement that not all MGTOW supporters would call themselves misogynists? 2001:BB6:289B:4258:28AA:9CA5:8181:8147 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you do find those sources, feel free to present them here for discussion. But until then, we will go with what the sources do say. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most misogynists don't call themselves misogynist. Just like most racists don't call themselves racist. Why should we care? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We should care possibly because wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such strives to present a balance world view. If a significant enough number of people within the MGTOW community do not regard themselves as misogynist, calling the entire "movement" misogynist seems inaccurate. JackStonePGD (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 March 2021

Can someone re-write this because this is the most opinionated article I've ever seen in my life. "Misogynistic, movement that separates women blah blah blah". Who wrote this? A feminist? Mohammad (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

All the sources calling the movement misogynystic are journals and books . This seems very interesting and suspicious. May someone explain to me why?

:PS- Most (if not all) of the sources are left-wing books and websites.

Thanks for reading... Mohammad (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PARTISAN: Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control, a reputation for fact-checking, and the level of independence from the topic the source is covering. All the sources cited meet these requirements. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources calling the movement misogynystic are journals and books. This is because When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. (WP:SOURCETYPES) GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also see the discussion this user started at RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#MGTOW. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:::@Sangdeboeuf: So you admit that the source is biased? That's all I needed to hear... Thanks!

@GorillaWarfare: Again I know the website (for most of them) aren't bias. But just with a little research, you can see that the writer is biased. I don't want to change anything as it's obviously not going to be changed (Personal attack removed) but I just want you to admit the sources are biased (also add a POV warning at the top of the article). Mohammad (talk) 15:05, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you're missing the point. This was not an admission that the sources are biased, but rather a statement that the issue of bias is not relevant when determining whether a source is reliable. There is no call or reason to add a POV tag to the article. Zaathras (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup tags exist to help users find ways to improve articles, not to warn readers or act as a badge of shame. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: what I'm asking for is either the sources are more neutralized or add a pov warning in this article. Mohammad (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tags should not be used to warn readers. What you seem to be suggesting is that we "balance" the existing sources with ones more favorable to the movement. That would be a false balance and would only lower the quality of the sourcing. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mohammad, the sources are neutral. You may wish to consider that your own point-of-view on this topic may not be. Zaathras (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fairly safe bet. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well well well, that certainly puts this discussion in a different light. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Mohammad (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Zaathras: Then why has almost every single editor before full lock changes the beginning. Shouldn't that tell you something? Mohammad (talk) 09:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure how to parse this. Zaathras (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that was a reference to POV edits like these [1][2][3] which seem to reflect the unpopularity of certain facts within the manosphere more than any problem with the sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for my poor wikipedia etiquette, I am not at all familiar with editing. I believe that it could be said that the sources are not neutral, however, as Sangdeboeuf said, they are reliable. 2001:BB6:289B:4258:28AA:9CA5:8181:8147 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 April 2021

Article mis-construes part of source quote. There is nothing in the source quote that directly proves woman cannot join MGTOW. The source quote describes the variance espoused of their final aim.

Source - "MGTOW comprises of mostly straight, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike other antifeminist groups, MGTOW espouse the abandonment of women and a Western society that has been corrupted by feminism.

Article - "Members of MGTOW communities are primarily heterosexual, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike some other manosphere groups, MGTOW disallows women from joining'

Suggested - "Members of MGTOW communities are primarily heterosexual, white, middle-class men from North America and Europe. Unlike some other manosphere groups, MGTOW proposes that feminism has corrupted Western society, and believes that men should abandon both' 81.97.68.22 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Its not in the source quote but from the source[4] itself: I was interested in how MGTOW, an exclusively male, antifeminist group related.... Could be sourced with other articles as well [5] A major rule with Men Going Their Own Way is that no women are allowed in the community—something that differs from MRAs. WikiVirusC(talk) 13:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2021

Do not refer to the Mgtow movement as misogynistic rather it is a movement to encourage men to improve themselves and understand that marriage isnt everything 84.65.203.102 (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:34, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources characterize them as misogynistic and that's what's reflected in the article. "MGTOW" is only ostensibly what you claim; a cursory browse of their communities reveals little more than (Redacted) spending their time denigrating women, primarily by way of "meme" nonsense. Go your own way already. 122.106.38.163 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&oldid=1020291326"