Jump to content

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

References

Since Timtrent sort of brought it up, I've been wondering if it's normal to have the quotes from the sources within the reference list. I haven't seen that before with other articles. It takes up a lot of space and makes it hard to quickly find a reference. But I'm a newish editor so if other people say that's a good practice, I'll have learned something new. Permstrump (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

@Permstrump: Limited snippets quoted from sources forming part of a citation are acceptable, some say desirable, others argue against them. Regardless of preference, the snippet must be directly relevant to the fact it is used to cite, and is subject to the laws of copyright. Normally it is assumed that it is Fair Use to make use of small portions of a work together with full attribution of it in order to illustrate a point.
The thing one must be careful of is to ensure that the quotation is small in comparison to the entire work it is excerpted from. As an example, a line from a two verse, four lines per verse poem is likely to be acceptable as a proportion, but an entire verse is not.
Otherwise it is a stylistic matter, or a matter of using a quote to aid comprehension.
It's not the point I was raising, though. not in the smallest way. Fiddle Faddle 14:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Quotes must qualify as fair use. For exactly that reason, they should be kept to the absolute minimum. Only the text that directly supports the point (or points) that they are being cited to support is needed. -- The Anome (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
@Timtrent: I guess by "sort of brought it up," I meant that you reminded me of my question from the other day when you copied the reference list above. I do realize that's not at all what you were referring to though. :) Thanks for the clear explanation! Permstrump (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Been wondering about this too. If you were referencing the same source article at several points in the wikipedia article, would you just add several quotes to the citation or make multiple citations? - Scarpy (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
@Scarpy: Opinions that I have seen differ. My choice would be to remake the entire citation but with a different and brief quotation. There seems to be no facility to handle this otherwise. The alternative is to place two separate quotations in the same citation in the quote= parameter. Fiddle Faddle 21:00, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We seem to have the following reliable/third-party sources so far:

Sources used in the current article that directly reference the topic as a primary, or near-primary, topic

  • Martin Daubney's Sunday Times piece here: while there are only Breitbart excerpts from it on the open Web, a full, citable version of it is probably available behind the Sunday Times' paywall.
  • Hymowitz, Kay (2011-02-27). "Why Are Men So Angry?". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 2015-12-30.
  • McCarthy, James. "David Sherratt, 18, is a men's rights activist who won't have casual sex in case he is falsely accused of rape". Wales Online. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help), which is at least good for existence-proof
  • Goldwag, Arthur (Spring 2012). "Leader's Suicide Brings Attention to Men's Rights Movement". Intelligence Report (145). Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved 6 April 2015. -- the SPLC is generally regarded as a reputable source
  • "Reggie Yates' Extreme UK: Twitter exploded in opposition to the sexist opinions held within the 'manosphere'". Lancashire Telegraph. 14 December 2015. Retrieved 2015-12-31.

My impression is that these five, taken together, are sufficient to establish notability for the topic.

In the article, but of uncertain independence

In the article, but of uncertain relevance

Not in the article yet

Sources from a Google Scholar search

Not much so far, and apparently nothing as yet in major journals, but we do have these works from undergraduates that have been through some kind of review process:

Do we have any more?

-- The Anome (talk) 20:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I can try digging through EbscoHost in a few days if you like. (Can't now because biannual password change went awry). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. -- The Anome (talk) 22:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I just searched "men going their own way" and "mgtow" on the database of academic journals that I can access through work (includes ebscohost) and this was the only hit when I filtered for peer-reviewed articles:
Gelfer, Joseph. (2010). The Good Men Project: Real Stories from the Front Lines of Modern Manhood. Journal of Men, Masculinities & Spirituality. Volume 4, Issue 1, p. 32.
Without that filter, the only other source that isn't already on the list is:
David K. McClurkin, et al. 25 Jul 2015. Readers write: Worldwide progress, single men, water issues in Israel. Christian Science Monitor. p. N.PAG.
I haven't looked at either article yet because I'm still at work. I'll check them out in a little bit to make sure they were actually referencing MGTOW, but it seems like they probably are based on the titles. The Christian Science Monitor one is probably free to the public anyway. Permstrump (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The CSM cite is to a readers' letters column [2], which would generally exclude it from being an WP:RS, even though the CSM generally is one. The mention of "MGTOW" is in a letter complaining that a linked article doesn't mention the phenomenon, so that article's not going to be usable here, either. -- The Anome (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Cross Gelfer off of the list too. I think this link to the full text should be accessible for free to everyone. It's a book review that only mentions MGTOW once in passing and to the best I can tell, MGTOW isn't mentioned in the actual book.
Daubney's column in the Sunday Times Magazine is actually all about MGTOW. It consists of quotes from interviews with 3 MGTOWs and a few other people in the Men's rights movement and the Honey Badger Brigade, but nothing from unaffiliated informants. Based on that and the author's history, even though it's RS, it's biased and shouldn't be cited frivolously. The way it's referenced in the current version of this article seems accurate and appropriate though. Is it a copyright violation if I share a link to where someone copy & pasted the full text in a reddit post?
Re: Ricky81682's earlier comment about the frequently recycled Google trends stat, this is what the Sunday Times article says,
Although it's impossible to say how many men actually consider themselves MGTOWs, this graph offers an intriguing insight into the popularity of MGTOW as a search term in Google. The horizontal axis represents time, the vertical axis shows the proportion of searches for a term, relative to the total volume of global searches "everyday sexism" searches for the feminist website that documents instances of casual sexism peaked in 2014 "mGTow" Google Trends, the source for this graphic, does not reveal the total number of searches for a term. But it does show that the proportion of searches for "mGTow" is fast increasing.
I can't see the actual graph b/c the version of the article that I can get through my work account is text-only, but I think this description makes it clear that it's a flimsy, nondescript stat that has been exaggerated over time as it's been requoted. Permstrump (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
@The Anome: I haven't read it, but I don't think the Mountford dissertation should be considered a potential RS b/c I can only find it on researchgate.net, which is all user generated content. The same DOI number is attributed to at least one other article on the same website, so the fact that it has a DOI doesn't seem to indicate it was truly published anywhere else. Permstrump (talk) 14:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Reggie Yates does not "reference the topic [of MGTOW]" as a "primary, or near-primary, topic" in that sham documentary. He only briefly shows the MGTOW.com website on screen and some youtube comment sections. Most of the documentary is about PUAs, MRAs, internet trolls, standup comedians, and feminists. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 15:44, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed, with the exception to the "sham" description. Yates doesn't make contact with any MGTOW folks and despite his obvious desire to contact someone from the movement and expand on it, he is unable to make any headway here and isn't able to elaborate in MGTOW in any kind of meaningful depth. As such, I think the BBC reference should be removed. PearlSt82 (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
And the SPLC report is primarily about men's rights activists, not MGTOW, and also only mentions MGTOW in passing. I am also surprised that you consider organization such as the SPLC, with a clear biased agenda (and even lawyers to defend this agenda) as a reliable source. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 15:53, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I had went looking before and found to the link sources on Google Scholar (mostly just going through and finding which ones we're referring to air planes). Will see if I can find out more about their peer-review process. -- Scarpy (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The only link in the EL section right now is to mgtow.com. Including this website without any additional context is implying that it's in some way official or vital to the topic, which hasn't been clearly established. The site is cryptic about who is running it and looks like it's mostly forums and similar WP:UGC, so it's not a reliable source by itself. If the article can be expanded or rephrased to explain what this site is (with reliable, independent sources, of course), then it may be include it with that context. Otherwise it doesn't look like it meets WP:EL guidelines, and should be removed. Having a matching domain-name isn't a good threshold for inclusion of an external link. Grayfell (talk) 23:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the link, as well as recently added mgtowhq.com, which appears to be a forum. Per WP:EL, if there is a high-quality directory of such sites it could be considered, but an indiscriminate collection of links to mgtow-aligned sites is not neutral, and invites spam. Grayfell (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL sure sounds to me like "links to mgtow-aligned sites" are exactly what an article on mgtow should have. 76.64.13.25 (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at all. MGTOW isn't an official organization, so there isn't an official link that could be included. There needs to be some criteria for inclusion other than being about a topic. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY, otherwise anyone could throw together a wordpress blog and have it linked here. A quick search showed dozens and dozens, probably hundreds, of sites, forums, blogs, youtube channels, et cetera. Few if any would be reliable sources and as far as I can see none of them have any substantial claim to being somehow official. Grayfell (talk) 21:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

References mentioning MGTOW

Allain's piece can be downloaded from this page. She calls MGTOW as "extreme" MRAs and cites ReturnofKings.com as a MGTOW website created by a blogger who is a professional pick-up artist. It's not the best source in terms of anything really. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
After reading Allain's piece in full, I agree. The crux of it are her subjective reactions to, and characterizations of, posts in Men's Rights subreddits. She gives no actual data to support characterizations she's making of the posts and posters. Although their FAQ for the journal it's posted it in does say that professors review submissions, making it in some sense "peer-reviewed" there's not much that can be used from Allain's article other than her personal opinions about content in Men's Rights subreddits. - Scarpy (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way/Archive_7&oldid=702701407"