Talk:Men Going Their Own Way: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:50, 26 July 2020

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

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

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

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

Article policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

Articles for creation Start‑class

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

Men's Issues Start‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Men's Issues, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Men's Issues articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Men's IssuesWikipedia:WikiProject Men's IssuesTemplate:WikiProject Men's IssuesMen's Issues articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Family and relationships (defunct)

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

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Alternative Views Start‑class Low‑importance

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

Feminism Start‑class Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article

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

Template:Findnote

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

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

Article policies

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

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

misogynist, far-right

"(MGTOW), an online misogynistic hub...(part of) the modern, global far right".[1] - SummerPhD^v2.0 05:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jones et al., 2019

Jones, Callum; Trott, Verity; Wright, Scott (November 8, 2019). "Sluts and soyboys: MGTOW and the production of misogynistic online harassment". New Media & Society. doi:10.1177/1461444819887141. ISSN 1461-7315.

This peer-reviewed source has a general overview of the MGTOW phenomenon in its introduction (full text available via Google Scholar). Parking it here until I have time to go through it properly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are several references to this group being 'Libertarian' at some stage of its existence. None of the sources mentioned this. One of the used sources specifically states it was not a political movement. Please remove the affiliation between the MGTOW group/movement and the Libertarian party. Thank you!

"they are not a political movement nor do they seek to alter society" https://books.google.com/books/about/Men_s_Rights_Gender_and_Social_Media.html?id=AKgxDwAAQBAJ&q=mgtow+manosphere#v=snippet&q=mgtow%20manosphere&f=false Eomar2828 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done

"Libertarian" and the "Libertarian Party" are not necessarily the same thing. The orientation predates the party.

The sources do discuss the original libertarian bent of the movement: "Men Going Their Own Way were in the past almost uniformly libertarian..."[2] "As the MGTOW movement is entangled with alt-right and libertarian politics..."[3]. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Views on women and feminism

The section "Views on women and feminism" is structured more as arguments and counterarguments, as opposed to description of the beliefs of the group. I suggest that the comments by Angela Nagle, Mack Lamoureux and Barb MacQuarrie be moved to a separate section "Criticism of the Community". Martinkunev (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus (and resulting trend) on Wikipedia is to move away from criticism sections as they tend to create a "challenge" section. Integrating the material of a group's POV and relevant sources presents an integrated whole. So, we might say followers of a fringe diet say humans don't need vitamin B12, though nutritionists say the lack of B12 in the diet can lead to irreversible neurological problems.

In this case, the back and forth is mostly reliable sources saying members generally believe X because Y, which results in Z. Taking that apart would have the article explaining X twice: once as the belief and a second time to provide context for the Y and/or Z. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, criticism sections are problematic, I agree with SummerPHDv2's comments. That being said, the general format and prose of the article is pretty average. I can't put my finger on the issues, but it flows badly, the prose are clunky. Needs a heap of work. Bacondrum (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess

This article is all over the shop, heaps of borderline sources, many claims included that are not made in the cited materials. I think the general gist is right - MGTOW are clearly an extreme misogynist separatist group, but this article meanders all over the place. I started to go through it, but I'm leaving it because these kinds of articles are often battlegrounds and I can't be bothered battling over POV claims and marginal sources. Just thought I'd put it out there that this article is a mess. Good luck and best wishes to those who aim to improve it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Maybe one of these days soon I'll get up the energy to take a pass at it; I have a lot of pretty decent book and scholarly sourcing from my work on related articles, and they talk about MGTOW a fair bit too. Your changes are an improvement at least, even if it needs a lot more work! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found that energy! I've at least fixed what was there, though I imagine there's still a good amount of room for expansion here. I've considerably reduced the article's reliance on news sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MGTOW entry requires significant revision for honesty.

The actual WIKIDICTIONARY definition is: (neologism, sometimes used attributively) Men Going Their Own Way: a social phenomenon of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.

Applying this more broadly, a man makes his own decisions -- regardless of the gender of the influencer.

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is SAID TO BE an anti-feminist, misogynist, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism; there are men who feel that is a gross overstatement.

No Ma'am came from the comedy TV show "married with children" during the 1980's. No reference is found from prior to the https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0642336/ episode of 11/14/1993.

Gender equality is not a lie; a less codependent writer could see the advantage of equality and interdependence.

Researchers can be found to implicate anything with anything.

Mark L (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Mark Antony LaPorta MD FACP, for myself--Mark L (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is actionable or sourced. You need to provide sources that support your claims. A "dictionary" entry from another site does not fit the bill.--Jorm (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laportama: Wiktionary, like other wikis, is not a reliable source (WP:UGC). However I appreciate you pointing out that the definition there is lacking; I have updated it. Since, as you claim, "researchers can be found to implicate anything with anything", I'm sure you will have no problem providing reliable sources of similar quality to the ones used in this article that can support whichever changes you wish to see made to this article. Until then, there's nothing actionable here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary will tell you arsenic is a "nonmetallic chemical element (symbol As) with an atomic number of 33."

You need Wikipedia to tell you how toxic it is. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

MGTOW does not support white supremacy or misogny, please remove that. Nottruedotcom (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Please provide sources that support your suggestion.--Jorm (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nottruedotcom: Please also review the sources used in the article, which state quite unequivocally that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I will also point out that the article does not state that "MGTOW supports white supremacy", but rather that there is notable overlap between the membership of MGTOW and white supremacist groups. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article is completely biased against men and shows them as bad guys while telling us all women as great.It was lastly edited and shows mgtow as a hate orgnaisation and it needs to be changed Lord Petyr Baelish (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)— Lord Petyr Baelish (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

(edit conflict) @Lord Petyr Baelish: Because your account is so new, you are not currently able to make changes to the page directly. Edit requests are an opportunity for people such as yourself who are prevented from directly editing the page to request a specific change. Please provide the specific text you wish to see changed, and if it's more than a very minor edit (typo fix, etc.) please provide reliable sourcing to support the change. There are more details on edit requests at WP:ER. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You edited your comment while I was saving mine, so to reply to your new comment: the article reflects the reliable sourcing describing the MGTOW movement. If you have reliable sourcing that contradicts that MGTOW is part of a hateful ideology, feel free to present it. As for your claim that the article is "biased against men and shows them as bad guys while telling us all women as great", I don't think this article makes any value judgments about men or women as a whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Nowhere does this article say 'men are bad guys and women are great', or anything even vaguely like that. Seriously, read the article, and the sources that are used to support the content. Once you have done that, if you feel that there are specific changes that you want to suggest, make another edit request, citing the sources you would use to support it. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic

ISBN 978-1097628322 comes to mind. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is far from a reliable source. It appears to be a self-published book by a member of the movement. This article is primarily written based on scholarly sources, and a self-published book is not going to cut it as a contradictory source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independently published sources are not inherently unreliable, and on the contrary WP:SPS encourages field experts. For other further perspectives to balance out the article which touch upon the movement, see ISBN 978-1505110265 and ISBN 978-1905177172. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 107: / Line 107: @@
 ISBN 978-1097628322 comes to mind. [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] ([[User talk:Symphony Regalia|talk]]) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 :That is far from a [[WP:RS|reliable source]]. It appears to be a [[WP:SPS|self-published book]] by a member of the movement. This article is primarily written based on scholarly sources, and a self-published book is not going to cut it as a contradictory source. [[User:GorillaWarfare|GorillaWarfare]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:GorillaWarfare|(talk)]]</small> 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
+:: Independently published sources are not inherently unreliable, and on the contrary [[WP:SPS]] encourages field experts. For other further perspectives to balance out the article which touch upon the movement, see ISBN 978-1505110265 and ISBN 978-1905177172.  [[User:Symphony Regalia|Symphony Regalia]] ([[User talk:Symphony Regalia|talk]]) 01:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)