Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

Pierre Poilievre

How is the section on Poilievre of historical relevance? He has no known involvement with the community and was unaware of the hidden tag that was likely added without his knowledge. This should be removed unless there is a clear connection between him (or his online content) and the community. 129.222.184.120 (talk) 01:42, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

The tags were on his own YouTube channel, as covered by reliable sources. It is not the role of the Wikipedia to prove a negative for you. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but I do think we could trim it a bit. It's punching above its weight class in the History section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think someone vying to be the leader of a G7 nation being tied to MGTOW is definitely relevant, but the current text is a bit much. Not sure it needs to include a section about how hashtags work. 174.138.198.183 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I 100% agree. It's disgusting that Wikipedia is being used to amplify a political attack campaign. These edits need to be reverted, they have no place here. --Bananas21ca (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

 Note: I'm closing this request while it is under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

Statements regarding PUAs and MGTOWers

A sentence in the lead states: (emphasis mine)

The two groups overlap both in membership and in ideology; both believe that feminism has destroyed Western society.

In the section, "Relation to other manosphere groups" > "Men's rights movement", we read:

The MGTOW community has a reciprocal disdain for pickup artists (PUAs) due to their differing opinions towards women. Whereas MGTOW focuses on separating entirely from women, pickup artists focus on developing techniques to have sex with women. PUA communities have mocked MGTOW as "Virgins Going Their Own Way".

These are contradictory statements. If PUAs and MGTOWers fundamentally oppose each other, how can they have mutual membership? That's how I understand this. To be honest, I'm not bothered to go through the refs right now (coz it's a lotta work) but I just thought to bring this up for anyone who might want to improve the article — Python Drink (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about the sentence in the History section, not the lead? The two groups referred to in that sentence are "MGTOW" and "alt-right", not "MGTOW" and "PUAs". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality of this page

This page is clearly biased and expresses viewpoints on the movement itself. Is anyone working on an unbiased version of this page? 24.203.146.203 (talk) 06:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page EvergreenFir (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Resolving the Controversy

Whatever my thoughts on the MGTOW movement, I think this article is needlessly partisan.

The responses to previous complaints - that it expresses the views of reliable sources - are reasonable. However, the fact there's more interest in MRA movements from feminists than scholars who use other analytical frameworks undermines these responses, especially considering the many controversies around feminist analysis in the literature. Uncritically citing sources on understudied questions where there is selection bias in who studies them can exaggerate the authority of views that require controversial assumptions.

One solution could be an edit that makes explicit the intellectual and/or political assumptions that those sources used to arrive at their characterisation of the movement as misogynistic. For example: "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, mostly-online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism. The community is considered misogynistic by [most/all?] feminist [sources/scholars/commentators?].". This would 1) maintain the primacy of reliable sources while 2) acknowledging any potential bias, and 3) make it transparent to the reader what assumptions would make the authority of these sources more or less credible. This is the essence of NPOV as I see it. A feminist scholar may think this label is more justified because it is backed by analysis using methods they trust, while someone skeptical of these methods could weigh this while judging the rest of the article. Most importantly, Wikipedia would not implicitly commit itself to a judgement either way on controversial methodological and political questions. 41.246.130.11 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• If you want to criticize sources, then bring more sources. That's how all this works. GMG^talk 20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  Are you being serious? This doesn't engage at all with what I've said. 41.246.130.159 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a thought experiment. The first sentence on the entry on branes reads "In string theory and related theories such as supergravity theories, a brane is a physical object that generalizes the notion of a point particle to higher dimensions."

  String theory is scientifically controversial and has been criticised by mainstream scientists. How many of the mainstream critics have criticised the concept of branes in particular? If all the reliable sources that mention branes are string theorists who assume they exist, should that sentence instead read "A brane is a physical object that generalizes the notion of a point particle to higher dimensions." and implicating branes exist? How is the entry made worse by making it explicit what you need to assume to believe branes exist? 41.246.130.159 (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  Wikipedia does not implicitly commit itself to a judgement either way on controversial methodological and political questions. Wikipedia reports on what the sources say. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  What's wrong with explicitly stating the sources' assumptions, if they are known to be controversial, while doing that? 41.246.128.143 (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  These are all nonresponses. The question is if 1) the assumptions of sources are known, 2) those are assumptions are considered controversial by mainstream sources acting in good faith, and 3) only sources using these controversial assumptions report on a topic, should those assumptions be made explicit in the entry? They are on the entry about branes, they aren't here. The two responses above don't even engage with this question at all. If the answer is "no" and there are good reasons for it based on Wikipedia's policies, that's fine. But the comments above are nonresponses. 41.246.128.143 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

  We commwnt on the sources' assumptions if and only if the body of reliable sources comments significantly on the sources' assumptions. In this instance I have seen no evidence that sources charwcterise sources' assumptions in the way you suggest. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)