Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

Discussion Regarding Recent Edit Requests

It is stated in the faq's that no reliable sources contrary to the "misogynist" label have been provided. If I can provide some, would anyone be willing to help me cite them?

I would also like to call attention to WP:IMPARTIAL - Wikipedia shouldn't be engaging in this debate, but simply documenting it. Our reputation as a non-partisan purveyor of information is at stake. Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help add content cited to such sources. Please read WP:RS for guidance on what counts as a reliable source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still performing my research and currently on my first source. https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1618037&dswid=-5088 p49 of the pdf linked on that page (p49 of the text, not the pdf itself) Sober Reasoning (talk) 14:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Master's theses are discussed in the guideline I linked you to. "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Sober ReasoningBut also see WP:FALSEBALANCE. Doug Weller talk 14:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I'm concerned however, that the consensus among scholars and big media may be skewed by a concerted partisan effort among academia and media. Is there a Wikipedia policy dealing with such scenarios? Sober Reasoning (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

So you're claiming there's a conspiracy, of which only you have true knowledge? Acroterion (talk) 15:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm not claiming any conspiracies. I'm voicing a concern for the sake of discussion, that most articles from large media and academia on this topic may be written from a predominantly liberal and pro-feminist viewpoint and that conservative views may be underrepresented. I don't believe this is a conspiracy theory; I think it can be demonstrated through a review of the various literatures and could warrant further investigation. I'm not sure how one would go about demonstrating it for encyclopedic purposes, or how Wikipedia would handle such a situation. I hope that clarifies my previous comment. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia handles it like anything else where there are fringe views that have no support in mainstream publications. See WP:FRINGE. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable academic and journalistic sources. They may not agree with your wishes or perceptions. That's not Wikipedia's concern, unless and until the consensus of reliable sources changes. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We come into the issue of Wikipedia's non-partisanship at that point. Even if the sources are considered reliable, and aren't required to be non-biased, how do we claim non-partisanship of our assertions if the majority of reliable sources are partisan? WP:IMPARTIAL otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV. Wikipedia reflects the consensus of reliable sources, and give fringe views due weight according to their prominence and coverage in mainstream sources. It does not demand false balance equivocation or advocacy of fringe views -- =rather the opposite. In point of fact, NPOV requires that WP plainly state the consensus of reliable sources, and, if appropriate to note prominent dissenting views. In this case, there are no prominent dissenting voices that anyone has set forth. Acroterion (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I understand the policy of giving various views due weight, and that no prominent dissenting voices have been set forth. I'm not suggesting that we jump on changing the article itself. My goal was to open a discussion about those sources and potential partisanship that may be there, and how we may handle prominent dissenting opinions if some can be brought forth. I'm also concerned about the use of Mark Zuckerberg as a reliable source in citation 2 of the article. Besides his wealth and fame, what lends him credence as an authority on this topic? Sober Reasoning (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

So, you saw "Zuckerberg" in the citation and knee-jerked yourself into thinking this article was quoting the CEO of Facebook? Why don't you re-read that citation and try again... Zaathras (talk) 17:04, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

"Mark Zuckerberg probably isn't, But Donna Zuckerberg, who is who's cited, appears to have written on the subject. Perhaps you should read the article and the sources (of which there are a mujltitude) more closely? Acroterion (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I see now it was Donna Zuckerberg. Thank you for the clarification on that item. Sober Reasoning (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be demonstrated — The best way to write Wikipedia articles is to review the sourcing available, and then write articles based on the viewpoints expressed therein. Choosing a position, then searching far and wide for sources that might support it that you think may be out there, is a good way to end up with an unbalanced article. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the desire for WP:IMPARTIAL language, and I do my best to respect this in my own edits. But people raising this issue do themselves no favors when they start alleging a "partisan" conspiracy among reliable sources. For one thing, reliable sources are not required to be unbiased. Virtually all RSes are unanimous in that MGTOW promotes misogyny. Even if saying as much in WP:WIKIVOICE is less than ideal, all previous attempts to change this read more as efforts to whitewash the topic, which is worse than some opinionated language IMO. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

What makes a reliable source then? To my knowledge, a reliable source is an impartial, non-biased origin of verifiable and truthful information.

If a source is biased and partisan, it is then quite likely that the information presented will be not as accurate and skewed towards their respective partisan leanings. 24.239.68.230 (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WP:RS and its WP:BIASEDSOURCES subsection may be helpful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a reliable source 2A02:C7F:C6C:3A00:1463:B427:6DAA:3CA7 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

No "reliable sources to the contrary" have been provided because it's imoossible to prove that something never happened. No reliable sources have been presented that the easter bunny doesnt exist, either. Just because no evidence has been shown does not mean that there actually IS any evidence to show. Can you show any evidence that you are not a murderer?

The utterly biased and one-sided language in this entry is absurd and completely breaks the neutrality rule. Just because someonevfjnds tge tooic objectionable is ni excuse to engage in a political screed against a group. State the facts only and let the reader decide. Whoever wrote this entry should be ashamed of themselves for their lack if dispassion, and orevented from more editing due to their clearly pushing a highly biased personal political agenda. Finsternis (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page, as well as WP:NPA. Acroterion (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Our "neutrality rule" is a bit poorly named because it's not really about "neutrality" writ large, but rather about accurately reflecting the sources. That can sometimes be unsatisfying, I understand. The best way to achieve change is to suggest some discrete improvements to the article, backed by reliable sources. Trying to adjust an article in its entirety is, essentially, never successful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No "reliable sources to the contrary" means no sources describing MGTOW as anything other than a misogynistic group, and plenty of sources saying it is. Neutral point of view on Wikipedia means summarizing the views of reliable sources fairly and proportionately. Not presenting a false balance as if all points of view are equally valid. See also Argument from ignorance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Misogyny?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

In an encyclopedia, it is crucial to provide an accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive representation of any subject, including the MGTOW movement. Labeling the entire group as misogynistic without considering the diverse range of views and motivations among its members could lead to an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the movement.

It is essential to acknowledge that MGTOW is a decentralized movement, encompassing a wide range of perspectives and beliefs. HeerMeMoo (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources to support your proposed changes EvergreenFir (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

"Characterize?"

We should not be using sources that merely characterize things. Instead, they should be able to empirically support their positions with evidence or peer review. In this case, any source (the burden being on the currently used sources) would need to prove unequivocally that the entire movement is anti-women and not just anti-feminism.

Now for my spiel: Categorically, if you have any background in basic sociology, you can discern that being anti-women is misogynistic, while being anti-feminist is not. MGTOW is anti-feminist.

Back to wiki talk: I believe that using a source you found which "characterizes" anything is essentially using that source to validate the opinion of said source.

For example, using an encyclopedia as a source for what an apple's skin is made of is more reliable than going to a contentious website (assuming there's some fictitious argument over apple skin) that "characterizes" it as one thing and uses some disparaging term like "flimsy." And no, the encyclopedia in this example would not be “characterizing” anything by offering correct info.

(Misogyny is a disparaging term in this case.)

See:

"Closing Comments" in https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1618037/FULLTEXT01.pdf

My favorite lines being (regarding the MGTOW members researched) "online information should not be taken as representative of my informants" and "the practices of MGTOW can be understood as acts of resistance." HeerMeMoo (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RS#SCHOLARSHIP, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I highly doubt this one qualifies. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I read the first paragraph of this Encyclopedia entry.It is clearly biased.

The use of the terms "Mysogynistic' 'Alt Right White Supremacy' will unfairly influence and misinform the new reader, who simply wants an accurate definition of the subject they have looked up, and are trusting Wikipedia to provide them with .

This type of prejudiced writing hardly does Wikipedia, or the wider world of knowledge, a service,And it is inclined to cause the more experienced reader to reduce the level of trust they have in this valuable on line service. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:439:2815:7232:DFC1 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

We have an FAQ that addresses all this, this is not a forum for people to complain about how something is described in reliable sources. @FMSky, please explain why you think the IP is "making a good point"? The comment above is typical of the drive-by complaints that we see on a regular basis about characterizing a misogyny-based movement as misogynistic. Acroterion (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

its definitely a misogynist movement but the lead also said "white supremacist". the problem with this was that it was only backed up by the writing/opinion of a single (non-notable?) author without a page mentioned and it was prominently featured in the lead like it was a widely known fact. so i see why there are lots of IPs/driveby editors coming here to challenge some of the stuff being written. --FMSky (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

You might want to look at the references in the FAQ for this point and see if they can be incorporated. Acroterion (talk) 12:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

The page number was given in the citation: the lowercase Roman numeral x indicates a page in the foreword to the cited volume. It's not x as a placeholder or variable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support the conclusion that MGTOW is somehow misogynistic. It is definitely anti-feminist, but just because feminists hate MGTOW, doesn't make MGTOW misogynistic. The admin refuses to accept this fact. Wikipedia has lost all credibility when it comes to politics. This page needs a new admin. Lightningalex1 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

"It is essential" that we follow the reliable sources, which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

view above reply to @EvergreenFir HeerMeMoo (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Writ Keeper is correct. A master's thesis is not sufficient. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

HeerMeMoo, please stop this ridiculous formatting, sticking ::- after every line. It stretches out your posts twice as long as they need to be. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MGTOW communities? Members?

This article says a great deal about the MGTOW communities and their members and their beliefs. However, I am unable to confirm the existence of any such thing as an MGTOW community.

MGTOW.com is a blank page.

The NO MA'AM blog has been inactive since 2015. GalantFan (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Defunct sites exist all over the internet. The article also mentions r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum. Are you saying the entire movement is some kind of hoax and that all the published papers, books, news articles, etc. are fake? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying the published papers are authoritative and define the movement? Because resistance against external definition is literally in the term, "going their own way". The lede paragraphs are biased and present a one-sided view of small but vocal subset. GalantFan (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum also no longer exist and haven't been replaced. GalantFan (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. You have not provided any reason these published papers are unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

The existing sources already point out in the History that the modern followers have diverged from the original followers. Descriptions which paint it as a uniform community are therefore false. GalantFan (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

How this little coterie of women-haters define themselves is entirely irrelevant. We go by actual reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Gotta spoon feed you.

"it is believed to have emerged in the early 2000s."

"Earlier members of MGTOW were largely libertarian. There is a divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW, with some earlier members expressing derision for the present-day MGTOW community."

"MGTOW often disavow hierarchies and claim to be leaderless; some deny that MGTOW is a group or movement at all, instead emphasizing each member's individuality and independence within a collective. "

Because there literally is no leader, no hierarchies, and no organization. It's like Antifa.

Everything I wrote in the intro is already in the article. GalantFan (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You go by sources. Their reliability is a matter of opinion. They attempt to define an ideology which is as individual as its practitioners. GalantFan (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You didn't even read the sources when you made this false claim. You did not follow the sources.

"which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)" GalantFan (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Their reliability is a matter of opinion. I'm afraid that it most certainly is not. You are cautioned to stop making these edits, otherwise a block is likely. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You are not reading the sources. Some of the sources say that it has changed since 2001 and that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny. GalantFan (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean holy crap, twenty years ago, it was just some guys who decided not to date anymore. OMG! How terrible! GalantFan (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Some of the sources say ... that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny – having read most of the sources myself, this seems unlikely, but go ahead and supply the exact citations, with relevant quotes if possible.

According to the sources we have, the divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW has to do with the movement becoming more overtly right-wing and white-nationalist tied to male separatism over time. Not with being more or less misogynist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC) edited 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Twenty-seven years ago, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project was started by a Canadian woman to be inclusive of sexually frustrated people of all genders. To define "incel" based on that project alone would be a simple whitewash. It's the same with this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I am more concerned with what has been removed from the page than what has been added to it. Of course the modern online community should be discussed.

The problem in my view is that the origins and ideology have been completely overpowered and nearly completely eliminated from the article. GalantFan (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The best practice is to find the most reliable sources on a topic and then summarize what they say, not first decide what you want the article to say and then go looking for sources to support it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

That is an excuse to justify obscuring history. It does not excuse deleting 20+ years of history. GalantFan (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's foundational content policy is verifiability, which means that everything in a Wikipedia article must be supported by a reliable source. If this "20+ years of history" you're talking about hasn't been covered in reliable sources, then yes, lack of verifiability is the best reason to remove it from the article. Wikipedia does not do oral histories. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

---

In the past few years, the entire tone of the article has changed radically from its focus on describing MGTOW as a lifestyle of independence into concentrating on the toxicity of online forums. MANY other editors have objected to the current focus of the article. I believe the entire article should be reverted to its original focus on MGTOW as a lifestyle. GalantFan (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

To put it another way, you want the article to ignore the last 20 years of MGTOW's history because it reflects poorly on a "lifestyle" you're part of. That's not going to fly. We have an FAQ for this very reason. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you want to make such a drastic change to the article, you will need to present reliable sources that indicate this would be a comprehensive overview of the subject as it exists today. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

"comprehensive overview of the subject", HA, is that what you think the current article represents? The entire article treats the subject as if it is an online club of malevolence against women.

Peter Banh said it as well as I have seen "MGTOW is a lifestyle. MGTOW advocates men to live a single life, focus on themselves, love themselves, take care of themselves, improve themselves. MGTOW men mind their own business, they leave women alone." GalantFan (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Again, feel free to present (actual) reliable sources to the contrary. I don't know who Peter Banh is, but you'll need actual published sources, not you putting words into the mouth of a random person. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

As you literally just ascribe actions to me which I did not do. GalantFan (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."

But Wiki articles are supposed to be all those things. GalantFan (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:NPOV means fairly and proportionally reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Not censoring material you find inconvenient or objectionable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

MANY other editors have objected. Er, no. Single-purpose acounts, sockpuppets, trolls, and outside brigading do not count as actual editors here, when speak of gauging editorial consensus. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

And there is another gross misrepresentation. GalantFan (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

1. IP user 129.222.184.120 made a lone comment, never returned.
2. User Sober Reasoning made 5 comments 15 months ago, returned for 1 more 8 months ago. Little of substances contributed elsewhere.
3. User HeerMeMoo complained about using the SPLC as a source 9 months ago, complained a few times on the talk page to complain when his edit was reverted. Never returned.

Those are 3 examples on the current page that initiated discussions, not including one-and-dones that commented within them. Zaathras (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, what's happening here? GalantFan isn't a new user, they know WP policies, they've been pointed at the FAQ. We don't need to have a debate with everyone who comes along here because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, if we do not, then some editors will claim "silence equals consent," and then blaze forward with whatever it is that they want to do or change. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You claim you have consensus. You don't even represent the sources accurately.

"MGTOW – are men who claim to want to literally ‘go their own way’; they consider themselves separatists and encourage men to turn away from women and recentre themselves, valuing an individualistic, self-empowering way of life"

PDFGalantFan (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Cherry-picking a single quote from only one of many sources cited is the epitome of undue weight. FWIW, the focus on individualism and especially male separatism are already mentioned prominently in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Re cherrypicking, you should read your own source past the first sentence, and especially the conclusion. When you do that, you see things like MGTOW propagate extensive and wide-ranging passive or undirected harassment and misogyny on Twitter. The conclusion says that the MGTOW forum is dominated by a small minority of posters who had made more than half of all the comments, and routinely set the agenda of discussion, that When talking about women, users did so in an openly misogynistic way, and that When talking about MGTOW, conversations sought to define and rationalise it as an ideology, both for the individual and the collective. The content analysis suggests the communicative form was largely communitarian, with stronggroup bonding, ties and engagement. It concludes that The prevalence of communitarian behaviours, particularly in regard to moderation and policing boundaries, somewhat contradicted the liberal individualism promoted within the MGTOW ideology and how they frame themselves as a ‘lifestyle’ or ‘philosophy’. Your own source is coming to a different conclusion than what you're trying to put into the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, the sentence that you keep trying to insert into the lede is the source describing how MGTOW members describe themselves, not what MGTOW actually is, which is a very important distinction. When the source discusses what MGTOW actually is in its own voice, it says (in the very next sentence): MGTOW are a subgroup of the Manosphere which is the digital manifestation of the Men’s Liberation Movement, and home to several other male-only groups (emphasis mine). So, remind me who's misrepresenting what the sources say? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I will agree with you that the POV of the lede and in fact the entire article has been radically altered since 2015. It is now composed entirely by critics. GalantFan (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

You keep saying this, but change is not inherently bad. Articles are supposed to improve (as this one has) over time. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say about a subject. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are critical of a topic, Wikipedia will be too. We don't do false balance. If you want to change the overall coverage of MGTOW, you need reliable sources that support you. You have yet to post any that do so; until you do, there's nothing in the article that needs to change. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

The fact that Wikipedia said something different in 2015 is irrelevant. The age of a piece of content confers no special privileges, and articles can and will be mercilessly edited. In fact editing is the main process by which articles are improved over time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So there is a time period of several months, after which everything someone writes can be disregarded concerning arriving at consensus. That way, consensus doesn't require a majority. It just needs a persistent editor. GalantFan (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, this isn't hard. You need reliable sources to support the changes you want to make. All of this other stuff about consensus or the original state of the article or whatever is a distraction. Changes to Wikipedia articles require references to reliable sources, period. So go find some and put them here, so we can look at them. That's all there is to it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

+1 to what Writ Keeper says above. GalantFan, I know you're unhappy with the state of the article, and I suspect you and I would likely disagree on most things. That said, Wikipedia doesn't turn on a dime the way you (and I, sometimes!) would like it to. Pick one or two small discrete changes you would like to see in the article and that are well supported in sources and suggest them. I can promise you I will consider them in good faith, and in my experience, your other interlocutors here will do the same. I know that's not always satisfying, but if you keep doing it over time, you might be surprised how much change you can make. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Misogynistic?

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)

• 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)
• And an FAQ at the top of the page. Acroterion (talk) 11:07, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  PS: You might have a read of WP:YESBIAS. MrOllie (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Newcomer? Really? Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  "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)

  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)

16 May 2024

Thread retitled from "Needs reboot from Association Fallacy sources".

The topic here needs a reboot and cleanup due to its repeated reliance on sources which are using association fallacy to draw broadly misleading conclusions about it.

Group A makes a particular claim. Group B, which is currently viewed negatively by some, makes the same claim as Group A. Therefore, Group A is viewed as associated with Group B, and is now also viewed negatively.

Everyone can share some traits with multiple groups and one or more of those groups are unwelcome, negatively viewed or worse. From that, you could by association fallacy claim that any person is in the unwelcome group. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:ED0B:8C9D:D3A4:96E8 (talk) 15:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would respectfully remind that while fallacies are, well, fallacious, that does not mean their conclusions are therefore incorrect. On a more practical level, I am not quite sure what response you would like to this--for someone to rewrite the entire article from scratch? I suppose that's possible, but I find it unlikely. You could certainly draft a proposed replacement and submit it for consideration. But usually the best way forward is to suggest incremental changes supported by reliable sources. As they say (somewhat gruesomely), the way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

The article relies on multiple mainstream scholarly sources, which tend to support one another's conclusions about the nature of MGTOW. Wikipedia articles are based on such published, reliable sources, not armchair philosophizing. See the #FAQ above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Particularly by fallaciously using repeated “overlapping membership” terms used to equate MGTOW with unfavorable groups when MGTOW has no stated platform, charter, or organization statement the ideology of said unfavorable groups.

Sources cited need to be reviewed for backing data for grouping MGTOW with unfavorable groups. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:ED0B:8C9D:D3A4:96E8 (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Including a conclusion based on a fallacy makes that conclusion unproven by that and disqualifies the RS from being the basis for including the conclusion.

Another RS would need to be used to include the conclusion. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:ED0B:8C9D:D3A4:96E8 (talk) 21:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You could make an argument that some of those sources are unreliable. You can't make an argument that Wikipedia shouldn't follow WP:RS, according to WP:SNOW. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

For example, reference 4 Chemely 2019 has a statement with no backing credible RS or data to group MGTOW with other groups. The statement is an unsupported opinion and not a RS.

the reference 4 Chemely 2019 should be removed.

Page X from the cited work has

“Anti-feminism is a global phenomenon: traditional, cheap, easily under- stood and networked. In recent years, media coverage of anti-feminist movements has shed light on specific communities, hashtags and activities such as men’s rights activists, incels, “pick-up artists”, “Meninism”, “the Red Pill”, #YourSlipisShowing, #gamergate and “Men Going Their Own Way” (MGTOW), all of which reflect deeply misogynistic, anti-feminist philosophies. These overlap with global white supremacist, authoritarian and populist movements involved, it is increasingly evident, in transna- tionally destabilizing online propaganda campaigns. These communities, driven by aggrieved entitlement and the powerlessness that some men feel despite institutional male dominance, employ a wide range of strategies to harass and silence women online as they cross borders, language and nationality. A woman politician or writer in Pakistan, for example, might find that she is being harassed not by anti-feminists in her own locality but, for example, by those in a Midwest US state. A teenage girl in Ireland might be virally publically shamed by anti-feminist mobs whose members can come from virtually anywhere in the world.”

No RS cited, no data and unsubstantiated. The citation to this should be removed.

it offers no proof via RS or data that MGTOW is associated with the other groups. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:ED0B:8C9D:D3A4:96E8 (talk) 21:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

If the issue is overlapping membership with white supremacist, authoritarian and populist movements, Chemaly (2019) is not the only source; see also Zuckerberg (2018) p. 19: In spite of the conflict between pickup artists and Men Going Their Own Way over their differing approaches to women, both groups have begun to merge with the so-called Alternative Right or Alt-Right, a neoreactionary white nationalist group that began gaining prominence in 2015 and has been steadily growing since.¹⁸ The supporting footnote is not viewable online, but anyone wanting to check Zuckerberg's work can probably find a physical copy through their library.

MGTOW doesn't need a platform, charter, or organization statement for scholars to analyze the movement's ideology by simply reading what MGTOW users post on public forums. There's a whole § Ideology section in the article devoted to this. Pointing out that MGTOW and the alt-right share certain beliefs or even certain members is not an association fallacy; it's just an association. Despite multiple attempts over the last few years to remove this association, it's backed up by academically vetted sources, which are generally the most reliable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

The fact that there are overlaps, even enormous ones, between alt-right groups and MGTOW by no means is the equivalent of saying that the groups have begun to merge. That is absurd. One might as well claim that oxygen-breathers and the alt-right movement have begun to merge. There is absolutely no difference between the two scenarios, despite the reductio ad absurdum nature of the latter. And unless the followers of a given group say certain things *specifically in relation* to that group, their online or any other statements *cannot* be said to characterize the group for precisely the same reason. If, say, a group of people espousing a return to barbarism coupled with cannibalism happen to overwhelmingly prefer wearing, say, Birkenstocks over Doc Martens, there is no logically sound way to reach the conclusion that Birkenstocks promote or merge with that groups ideology. Sorry for a second reductio, but... it makes the point. Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

You can call Academic sources 'absurd' if you like, but Wikipedia is still going to follow them rather than your opinions on the subject. That is what Wikipedia's content policies require. MrOllie (talk) 01:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't call the sources absurd. Please read more carefully, or, failing that, don't reply. Thank you. Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

(...indeed, one could even easily argue that even IF said individuals made statement in relation to belonging to some group it does not in any way follow that these are the beliefs of said group, but perhaps the evidence of large-scale misunderstanding/misrepresentation of same, but... for the sake of sanity and brevity, we can completely omit this further line of reasoning, at least here.) Saturn comes back around (talk) 01:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Once again, articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair philosophizing. Whether any Wikipedia user finds the sources logically sound is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Reread the quote and comment on citation 4b, not the Zuckerberg one. The other one should be removed from citation 4 because it has no backing data and no cited

reference 4 Chemely 2019 should be removed. The Zuckerberg part of reference 4 is not Removed. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:51D3:8BBC:991B:A185 (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't require sources to show their work or provide 'backing data'. They just have to meet WP:RS. MrOllie (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

What MrOllie said. That is simply not how any of this works. Happy Friday all the same. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

"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)

•  Not done. Read the FAQ at the top of this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Petitioner is correct, generalizing all members for the behavior of a few is fallacious and bad faith. 2600:8801:2F80:17:EE0B:62FE:A842:57BC (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

  Then your issue is with the reliable sources, not us. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)