Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Antifeminism suggested link[edit]

My removal of this with this summary: "The article itself states the movement distances itself from anti-feminism and been described to be more similar to "separatist feminism". Having "Antifeminism" as a related article contradicts this as it has nothing to do with it."

Reversion by @Grayfell: with their own summary "Clearly relevant to article. "MGTOW are described as a protest against feminist laws..." and "MGTOW see feminists ... as obstacles to male self-ownership.""

I stand by my first point. Third party input would be nice. UaMaol (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Where does the article actually say that the movement distances itself from anti-feminism? Sources seem to suggest the opposite. The Mel Magazine source cites an unreliable blog post from a pick-up artist likening them to Andrea Dworkin, who's become a mythical boogieman to modern antifeminists. Whether or not this opinion belongs is debatable, but the opinion is not something Wikipedia (or MGTOW for that matter) should treat as a fact. I don't see any reliable source actually supporting that comparison, nor do I see a reliable source supporting this from within the movement. That article cites a sociologist who says "[according to MGTOW] women, feminism and pickup artists are all the problems". It also cites the movement (such as it is) blaming "feminist double standards" for grievances.
The article twice mentions some form of opposition to feminism, and sources cited by the article further support this connection. This discussion of feminism in the article, and the contrast to feminism discussed by multiple sources, suggests that the antifeminism article would be a useful source of related information. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Negative in voice?[edit]

This article seems quite negative in voice. There should be an effort made to balance this out. MGTOW isn't hate against women as much as it's apathy toward them overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.115 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What you're asking for is false balance. If reliable sources report primarily negative things about a group/movement, the Wikipedia article is going to say primarily negative things. See also WP:BALANCE. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The "Reliable Sources" would be reliable if they were debating some of the criticisms that MGTOWs have made of relationships, instead of resorting to name-calling and shaming tactics. This type of behavior is ironically what started the MGTOW movement, and continues to fuel it.65.94.90.229 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
No. Reliable sources are reliable if they meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. If a blog gives a detailed, balanced discussion of MGTOWs criticisms of the world, it would not be a reliable source; it is still a blog and Wikipedia should not cite it. If the New York Times said that MGTOW is a cheese sandwich, it is a reliable source and Wikipedia should state that MGTOW is a cheese sandwich, citing the New York Times. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Reference number 10 in the Wikipedia article refers to VICE article (reliable source) which takes a quote from a BLOG written by Matt Forney (not a reliable source). Should this still be cited by Wikipedia?69.158.72.144 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, this is perfectly normal. Reliable, secondary sources are allowed to cite unreliable primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't allow Wikipedia editors to perform original research, instead we cite research performed by reliable sources. If this research involves analyzing primary sources and opinions, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Not exactly. The stretch "The movement has been described as "hateful, militant extremists"." is partial and based on only one source. Written by Dylan Love a tech reporter for Business Insider, a financial and business news website. Apparently does not satisfy reliable sources for an assertion of this weight.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
That quote was referring to the Red Pill, a different community than MGTOW. For this reason I've removed it. It's a very strong statement, and if it is indeed about MGTOW and I am wrong it should have a very strong reliable source, maybe even two for good measure. MutchyMan112 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"linked reference says nothing of the sort"[1][edit]

The edit removed: "MGTOW see feminists, "white knights", "[[social justice warriors]]", the [[LGBT rights movement]] and support for [[safe spaces]] as obstacles to male self-ownership.<ref name="KashmiraGander"/>[2]"

The source says, "In this quest, obstacles include feminists; white knights (men who are “chivalrous” towards women); social justice warriors; those who are pro-LGBT rights and support safe spaces, amongst other things."

The linked reference says something very much of the sort. If you feel there is some nuance or detail of conflict between the two, you will need to discuss it here. - SummerPhDv2.0 16:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: My apologies, I searched the article for "ownership" and found nothing, and prematurely concluded that the refence did not back up the bit that I removed. Thank you for fixing it. Amin (Talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your levels 3 and 4 are just wrong[edit]

Levels 3 and 4 are way off base and show a bias. Someone please edit or remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrongtj (talkcontribs) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The information is attributed to this source, which is provided as a citation. If you know of another reliable source which discusses this, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem in "Reception"[edit]

It's entirely negative. This doesn't reflect reality. Give the other side their voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8c:c001:98bf:e429:4a8:abb2:9324 (talkcontribs) 03:26, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

To do so, we would need an independent reliable source discussing any positive reception. Please note: self-published sources (forum postings, blogs, etc.) will not be acceptable. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

On SPLC[edit]

Following the contribution of an unregistered user (here), I decided (here) to rewrite the SPLC's labeling to better reflect the organization's indictment of MGTOW, to reposition a repeated portion and to offer the appropriate citation. Welcome comments/questions. Caballero/Historiador 05:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Got rid of the sun[edit]

Since the sun wrote a biased article, I put the parallel point to made clear why I removed that POV trash.

For men who claim to be removing women from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For Nutritionist who claim to be removing Sugars from their lives, they talk a lot about them... For Alcoholics Anonymous who claim to be removing Alcohols from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For Rape survivors who claim to be removing Rape from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For feminist women who claim to be removing macho men from their lives, they sure love talking about them.

That statement was made on POV and that must be avoided at all cost, the sun made a POV article and should not be cited at all.--FaustoLG (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)