Jump to content

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

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

Misogynistic?

[edit]

It is imperative that a Wikipedia article provide accurate, unbiased information. You can not characterize MGTOW as "misogynistic" as the premise does not imply that it is. Members of the community itself may be pushing misogynistic ideas, but the premise of the movement - which is what the introduction should describe - should not be described as "misogynistic". XenSolation (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are already two sections on this page discussing the same issue. Please read them and join the discussion if necessary. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And an FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is that you are the main person speaking for the entirety of the wikipedia community in this case? Your responses by far outnumber those of others and you seem to hold a position of power (or at the very least, some authority) on this site, and so one would think you should be exceptionally more willing to self-evaluate your own approach to the site and how you wield its arguments in debate. The simple fact that stands behind these accusations is that there is simply no discussion that this article is severely biased. The first several paragraphs are little more than recasts of the exact same inaccurate statements. Interestingly, not one single comment on this Discussion page that disagrees with your points and the impartiality of the article can even remotely be described as misogynistic or promoting violence; an odd fact for a leaderless group of people whose supposed most salient characteristics are precisely those two according to this article, and by extension, your comments here. You are abusing the intellectual basis for this site with your dogged defense of these (quite honestly) outrageous and silly claims about this movement. After spending weeks looking over a great deal of the media created by its members, I was actually highly impressed at the complete *lack* of these very qualities, which is the main reason I had chosen to learn more about it, as I don't have much interest or patience in either misogyny or violence. Coming here, I expected to see some interesting comparison of perspectives and instead find a page blatantly and disappointingly dishonest -- or, at best, skewed -- supported by articles many of which are quite simply inaccurate (to use a kind term). In the end, it of course doesn't matter what wikipedia ultimately says... but you do the site an enormous disservice with your bias and the bias you defend in the article itself, which I for one find enormously disappointing. Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Acroterion just has more patience for responding to repetitive comments than most. But rest assured, the Wikipedia community fully supports following the cited sources on this. You (and the various newcomers commenting here) won't get far by simply claiming that those sources are 'inaccurate'. MrOllie (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS: You might have a read of WP:YESBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Newcomer? Really? Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, look further up the page and in the archives, you'll find quite a lot of them making the same sort of mistaken argument over and over. MrOllie (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "rest assured, the community fully supports".
    What more need be said. That snippet captures your position more succinctly than anything I could come up with. And on that note, I leave you to it. Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how six comments make me "the main person speaking for the entirely of the Wikipedia community," especially since two of them are pointing to the FAQ (which was written by others as a consensus of the community), but suit yourself. Wikipedia follows the sources, not the analysis of individual editors or the motivations of those editors as reported by themselves. Since you seem to be veering into undue personalization of comments, I've placed a contentious topics notice on your talkpage, so that you understand that the community has designated topics like this to be under particular scrutiny for editor conduct due to past disruptive behavior where gender-related issues are concerned. You will also see this in the notices at the top of this page Acroterion (talk) 01:43, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here by accident, and noticed the 'misogyny' label, which I find both inaccurate, inappropriate and frankly offensive on a personal level. Leaving personal feelings aside, it is objectively untrue to describe adherents or MGTOW as misogynists, and I have removed it. If my edits are reverted, I will come back again, and again, and never stop arguing my position. . . which is clearly shared by the majority here. กำนัน (talk) 21:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can find it however you like on a personal level, but Wikipedia must reflect what the cited sources say. Wikipedia doesn't function on voting. MrOllie (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the FAQ. Edit warriors get blocked, and since you've given notice that you intend to do so, you won't get any patience from administrators. Acroterion (talk) 21:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

[edit]

"Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and society, which they believe has been corrupted by feminism.[2] "

Right at the start of describing of MGTOW is a false information MGTOW is NOT a Misogynystic organization is NOT that men that support MGTOW is misogynystic that is just like the Feminism right?! please make sure that you input the correct information about this movement BCS this movement is NOT about hating woman! MAKE IT RIGHT! 77.236.208.242 (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

[edit]

I understand reliable sources have described the overlap between members of MGTOW and white supremacist and/or alt-right movements. The article also asserts that most members (I don't know if there is a membership criterion as it's mostly just ideology) are white Europeans/Americans. We don't have any metrics to measure it, and this might have been the case when it started, but it's certainly a global phenomenon now. The article is trying to limit it to right-wing European whites, which is extremely disrespectful to the men worldwide who subscribe to this ideology. I won't argue about the misogynistic tag or the relation with white supremacists or even solely with the right wing, as RS reigns supreme above any logic. My only request is to omit the information about the overlap as it's redundant and disrespectful. I mean, some normal ascetics are also MGTOW (as their reason is not religious but just because they are simply fed up with relationships).Cmon guys! Jaybjayb (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaybjayb: I expect most people are open to changing the article to basically anything, but as you indicate, this needs to be guided by sources. Wikipedia is really a bottom feeder in the informational landscape. We only get to use what filters down from the big fish. GMGtalk 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @GreenMeansGo. It's just very odd to me that "non-heterosexual" men are allowed to go their own way without being judged. But heterosexual men can't go their own way without being labeled a bunch of things, most of it being extremely derogatory. And poor left-leaning men are not even allowed to think about going their own way, otherwise they'll be called far-right and placed in the same league as white supremacists? Haha. Good tactic, I would say, to stop them (at least). Anyway, I understand your point. And this is seriously not some political ideology advocating for men's supremacy and oppression of women that I'll fight to change its article content, otherwise my MGTOW propagating political party will lose. It's just a life choice advocating for men's mental health and well-being. Those who subscribe to it know better. My point was either to expand on it or remove redundant material which is not indicative of the entire reality. If it cannot be done (as it's "sourced"), then so be it. But usually, we do remove redundant stuff even when it's sourced.
[Thanks for your reply.] Jaybjayb (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think MGTOW is synonymous with men who've chosen to remain unpartnered, I'd recommend you read the article. You claim that "this is seriously not some political ideology advocating for men's supremacy and oppression of women", but that's precisely how sources describe it. Men who choose not to date women are not referred to as MGTOW, because that's a very separate thing from the subculture — much how people who are not having sex despite perhaps wanting to are not described as incels. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GorillaWarfare My previous reply where i said i am not gonna argue was deleted. So i am replying again. I know that's how sources describe it. And yes, incels can also be considered MGTOW(not by choice) if they get fed up by their lack of suceess in dating market. But obviously, not all MGTOW are incels. Men who choose not to date women or romantically get involved with them, even after having a significant sexual desire for women, fit the very definition of MGTOW. I don't think there is any condition that you can't talk to women, be proud of them, or support them. Abstaining from sex is also not a condition (e.g., masturbation, sex doll, etc.), but many do become ascetics. Surely, there amight be some extremists who would like to see a woman-free and men only world and call themselves part of MGTOW. But we have extremists everywhere in every ideology possible. I understand it's a very broad term, and RS is not supporting my view that much and that was the whole issue. I just wanted to discuss what everybody here thinks. You have a good day! Jaybjayb (talk) 02:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that response. Taking notice of their gender in that manner was frankly inappropriate, and you are being far too conscious of the gender of those with whom you engage. As noted below, this isn’t a forum. Acroterion (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HI @Acroterion I understand why you did what you did. But i only called the above user "maam" because the user mentuoned the pronouns (she/her) in the username.If she would not have mentioned it, i would not have assumed anything myself even after looking at the users photo. I understand the world i live in. But i alologise if it was inappropriate. Jaybjayb (talk) 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In colloquial English it has the opposite effect from what you may have intended, and comes across as flippant and dismissive on account of that emphasis on “ma’am.” Acroterion (talk) 04:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, all of this except the last two sentences is nearing WP:NOTAFORUM territory. It's probably best to focus on those latter sentiments. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sorry about that. Lets just follow RS. Not wise to start a gender war. Jaybjayb (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaybjayb: Eh... You're still pretty much arguing your personal perspective. That's not really the rules here. Spend as much or as little time on the issue as you like, but you're not going to get anywhere either way if you don't come bearing sources. GMGtalk 11:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mgtow IS synonymous with men who chose to remain unpartnered. This Wikipedia article is not true . That is a simple fact. Wikipedia tries to redefine what some terms mean as position of authority. That is not good. (Personal attack removed) 145.255.153.31 (talk) 09:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 13:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not claim to be an authority or to define anything. Wikipedia summarizes published, reliable sources. Anyone wishing to change the article has the duty to provide citations to reliable sources to back up their change. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose we set aside this article without placing blame on other editors. However, I highly recommend that an experienced and interested editor create a page on a subculture known as 'Passport Bros.' To my knowledge, there is no existing entry on Wikipedia. This subculture is somewhat akin to MGTOW, though it is not identical, and it specifically focuses on Western women. I believe it could be appropriately included within the Manosphere. Jaybjayb (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JUaybjayb -- that's a reasonable request, but in order for an article to be created, you would have to demonstrate that there is adequate coverage in reliable sources. If you could present some references for this subculture, then it would be a good start. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One can uncover a wealth of information simply by searching the term on Google. However, I am uncertain which sources would be deemed reliable and undisputed here. Regardless, it was merely a suggestion for anyone who might be interested. Personally, I am not particularly concerned, but I found it surprising that no articles on the topic exist. Jaybjayb (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize you don't mean it this way, and there's nothing wrong with it per se, but as a matter of Wikipedia etiquette, saying "there should be an article on this, google it" is a bit like saying "do my work for me." It is both the beauty and awfulness of Wikipedia that volunteer editors have to do everything around here! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 17:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The notion that any overlap between white Europeans/Americans and "white supremacist and/or alt-right movements" is redundant is frankly disrespectful to white Europeans and Americans. However, what you or I think is disrespectful is irrelevant; Wikipedia does not censor views that some people happen to find offensive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm. I never suggested that. Ofcourse there is a overlap in what you mentioned. Ofcourse any african, arab, indian, chinese etc wont be welcome in these groups. I said overlap between mgtow and white supremacists group is redundant because subscribing to mgtow ideology dosent need you to be melanin less and trump supporter. But i understand your point. And what we feel is irrelevant. RS reigns supreme. And i agree Jaybjayb (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you mean "irrelevant", not "redundant"? In any case, it's relevant because published RSes have noted it as relevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my mistake. Sorry, English is not my first language. I try to improve my vocabulary by incorporating new words, but I was wrong to use this term here. I see redundant means aomething is unnecessary because its repetitive. You are correct. What I meant was irrelevant. Thanks. Jaybjayb (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting, let's have some good faith in people who aren't native English speakers. English Wikipedia means "people who speak English" and we don't need to get too sidetracked in perceived slights that could just as well be explained away by something like regional differences. GMGtalk 14:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through comments by blocked sockpuppet/WP:LTA; see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaybjayb/Archive#17 July 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opinionation

[edit]

This article is opinionated. Calling a group mysoginistic because of your personal views is not only wrong, but also has no place on a platform meant to educate people. Your opinions aren't relevant on this platform. Reddouble (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article characterizes the group as the cited sources do, that is how Wikipedia works. Editor's opinions don't come into it. MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's incorrect and should not be included into the article simply because of sources biases. How can I help to change this? (Since I can't edit the article) Reddouble (talk) 03:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We describe subjects how reliable sources describe them. Even if that means doing so in a way that might seem biased to those related to the subject. For example, we call homeopathy a pseudoscience whose beliefs are contradictory to all modern sciences. Practitioners of homeopathy likely consider this biased, but that's what reliable sources say about the subject. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:52, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, how can I preserve the reliability of Wikipedia by correcting a protected mistake? Reddouble (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find other reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the FAQ. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect? That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Opinionated is also not the same as incorrect. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny label

[edit]
Article talk pages are not a general discussion forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The casual use of calling people who are standing up for their own rights, dignity, and equality is like calling the civil rights protesters in the 60s a bunch of radical racists. It's factually inaccurate, misleading, and reductive. I've never participated in trying to edit or get involved with Wikipedia 's content before but this was such and egregious and offensive errors that I couldn't let it slide since much of the frustration from people who are labeled this way comes from censorship and misrepresentation from communities who are oppressing them, while simultaneously claiming with no evidence to be victims. Jb41465 (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed to death already. See the #FAQ as well as the talk page archives above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? What's you're point? It is still an incorrect and biased label. 68.3.14.245 (talk) 12:26, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the FAQ says, we follow the academic sources on this. If they are 'incorrect and biased' so will be Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell from the sources cited the only standards they have applied socialigically (in itself study full of conflicting opinions and not much hard science but rather different interpretations of statistical data with subjective rather than objective definitions) don't stack up unless you sre willing to add the label misandry to the feminist wiki page. Cherry picking data or sources just doesn't cut it which is why there is a discussion about this in the first place. Jb41465 (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, what is objectively true is that there are a lack of equality for men's rights in the United States in favor of women. Women have the right to vote without having sign up for selective service. Women can kill their unborn child to absolve themselves of responsibility for raising the child but if they have the child the father is legally obligated to pay child support with no option to absolve himself of responsibility. Those are facts. An academic with a clear bias and subjective definition does not make their interpretation of a statistic a fact. Jb41465 (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you citations, it's called federal law. Jb41465 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or are you looking for the actual paragraphs to be cited? Jb41465 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the states have the right to enforce child support on parents and that means that if the father is ordered to and does not want to pay it he will still be obligated to under most state laws. An abortion in most states is legal and does not require the consent of the father. The right to vote for a male citizen or immigrant is dependant on agreeing to selective service Jb41465 (talk) 16:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective service is a formality. Since a general mobilization is highly unlikely, and a mass army would be astronomically expensive, such duty is not at all onerous.
We do respect people who fight for equal rights, we don't respect people who fight for privileges. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be looking for citations on what any of what you said has anything to do with Men Going Their Own Way. Even assuming you've given a complete, accurate, and not-wildly-misrepresentative framing of the state of men's rights vs. women's rights (spoiler alert: you haven't), nowhere in it does the conclusion "and therefore MGTOW is not misogynist" follow. If you want to change the article to say that MGTOW is not misogynist, you will need to cite reliable sources that specifically say that MGTOW is not misogynist to avoid synthesis; a vague gesture towards federal law isn't that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid using "misogynist" in wikivoice

[edit]


  • What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):

Remove the "misogynist" description in wikivoice and instead add a sentence along the lines of "The community has been widely described as misogynist by scholars and experts. [references used in article]".

  • Why it should be changed:

Using "misogynist" in wikivoice seems to directly violate MOS:LABEL, which explicitly includes "misogynist" as an example of a label to avoid using in this manner. MOS:LABEL suggests using in-text attribution instead (e.g. "widely described as misogynist by experts").

For example, the Al-Qaeda article first uses "militant organization" in wikivoice and only afterwards describes who designates it as a terrorist organization. This is the correct editorial approach as prescribed by WP:PAG and we should use it here.

spintheer (talk) 03:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

No, this would contradict WP:NPOV, which has more weight than the manual of style. It clearly states that avoid stating facts as opinions; since the sources are high-quality, usable for statements of fact, and unanimous, we cannot simply present their conclusions as an opinion. See also WP:INTEXT, which warns against misusing in-text attribution in this way. --Aquillion (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say pretty much what Aquilion wrote. Per WP:NPOV we go with what a preponderance of high quality sources state. TarnishedPathtalk 03:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but this seems like a misapplication of NPOV, because the basic premise seems erroneous. "MGTOW is a misogynist community" is not a factual assertion. It may be a popular opinion stated by all relevant reliable sources, but it definitionally cannot be a fact because it's an unfalsifiable statement (unlike the sky is blue, the example given in NPOV).
Just because all relevant reliable sources agree on something doesn't automatically make it a fact. NPOV recognizes this, and explicitly says that reliable sources may universally agree with a statement that is still only an opinion:
Avoid stating opinions as facts. Opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views.
NPOV also says Prefer nonjudgmental language. A neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor disparages its subject. "X is misogynist" is a value-laden statement that disparages the subject. It's fine to say that MGTOW is an online community and then say that it's widely described as misogynist, but it's inappropriate to just outright call it misogynist in Wikivoice. spintheer (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to the FAQs at the top of this page. To put it bluntly, you're incorrect. TarnishedPathtalk 06:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be helpful if you could refer to a specific part in the FAQ and explain how it addresses what I wrote. From what I can see, some of the FAQ answers repeat things that were said above (RSes support the statement), but none of them seem to add new relevant information to this discussion (say in wikivoice or not). spintheer (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, upon further search (e.g. [1]), there doesn't seem to be a consensus on a rule to separate opinion and fact. It looks like it's determined ad-hoc, individually per article.
If this is true and policy doesn't help, then maybe a RFC is needed (whether misogynist should be said in wikivoice or attributed in text, e.g. "The community has been widely described as misogynist by scholars and experts")? spintheer (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The assessments of subject-matter experts are valid as statements of fact in Wikivoice, as long as they represent a consensus of such sources with no significant reliable-source dissents, and as long as they're properly referenced and to appropriate sources. The dissents of non-RS and of individual editors not liking what's said without a clear basis in sourcing are not considered. The characterization of groups and movements is often a target for "this is just opinion." Wikipedia doesn't deal in watering-down of consensus of reliable sources in that manner to suit the preferences of individual editors, or of organizations and movements who wish to present themselves in a more benign light. The MoS and NPOV don't require both-sidesism. Acroterion (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. So there's a hierarchy:
1. Statements that are universally supported by RSes are considered as fact that's stated in wikivoice
2. Statements that are supported by most RSes may be attributed using "widely considered"
3. Statements that are supported by many (but not most) of the RSes might be mentioned in the lead with specific attribution
4. Statements that are supported by a few or one RSes might be mentioned in the body of the article.
In other words, in the context of writing articles, there is a continuum between fact and opinion. All else equal (e.g. WP:RSCONTEXT), a statement's place in this range is sort of determined by RS voting.
Wikipedia doesn't deal in watering-down of consensus of reliable sources in that manner to suit the preferences of individual editors, or of organizations and movements who wish to present themselves in a more benign light. That should really go without saying. Doing so is contrary to the WP:PURPOSE of this project and people who do so are not here to WP:BUILDWP. spintheer (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&oldid=1246158674"