Jump to content

Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pyrite Pro (talk | contribs) at 00:10, 27 December 2021 (→‎This page is bias: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

MGTOW is not misogynistic. Barrybranton1 (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[]

Uhhhhh. This don’t seem right

That first paragraph paints a picture I’m not sure is fair. I don’t see how men not doing the nasty is tastier… 2600:1700:8150:B110:5CEC:94F4:E531:7237 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

See the FAQ above for more info, but in a nutshell: the current text is supported by reliable sources, and if you want it to change, you will need to provide reliable sources that support your view. Writ Keeper  16:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[]

This page is bias

Please allow editing 2600:1700:7130:8140:98C4:E5F4:A2CB:EE44 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[]

  • The place to ask for changes in protection is thataway: WP:RFPP, but you'll need a better argument than "this page is bias" (and you'll need reliable sources that support your claims if you want to actually get any of your changes to stick). Writ Keeper  02:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Writ Keeper: Note that most editors that claim POV-pushing or any kind of bias in this article do not think the reliable sources are not there. They think the sources are not represented well and/or information is missing. For example: one regular comment is the use of the word 'misogynist' in the lead section. In the archives, you can find a substantive discussion between me and a regular editor about the placing of this word, and how it might not be the best idea to overemphasize this characteristic by placing it in the first sentence of the lead section, especially when the sources are not that reliable and do not place such emphasis. Never did I ever hit a wall that hard on Wiki, to the point that I suspect WP:OWN. You could imagine that less regular editors are scared off pretty quickly. I think your response to the IP editor here is also kind of discouraging: bashing their argument and setting the bar to an edit unnecessarily high is not helpful. For the latter, I could only say that edits do not always require new reliable sources. Changing the representation of sources, placement of statements and copy editing are edits that do not require new sources. To make a long story short, please be kind to new or visiting editors, and don't shut the door like this. It's a tactic that I've seen too many times in the talk archives of this article, and it doesn't make this article and wiki better. From now on, I will suggest this to other users as well. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Concur with Writ Keeper. Some situations are WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Wikipedia is not censored and is written for the reader. If someone comes to this article, they should be told what this organisation is in the lede, with further detail expanding on that, further on. If we are truthful about an organisation, or an article subject, especially a divisive one, then inevitably some people will be disgruntled. We write per WP:NPOV and what the sources say. We can hide what this organisation is until later in the article, and use nice words to describe it, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. If that annoys the odd random IP, so be it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[]
        First, mind that IP users are HUMAN too, so 'odd random IP' might not be the best descriptor for the discussion starter, even a bit hostile. IP users have the full right to not be registered. I would humbly recommend retraction of that statement. I'm not going to discuss the contents of this page at this moment. I'm only commenting on the way that dozens of fairly new or anonymous editors are treated on these talk pages, and that more experienced editors are regularly hiding behind a shield of policy and fairly harsh words to keep the status quo, and are therefore discouraging boldness or constructive edits. Of course we try to write from a NPOV, but dozens of editors coming to this talk page to tell us that there might be something off in this article might be at least an incentive to discuss instead of discourage. And of course, this talk page also attracts lots of biased editors, but that does not justify harsh and unconstructive behaviour. Cheers, Pyrite Pro (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I question the competence of anyone who thinks WP:RS is an "unnecessarily high" bar. Writ keeper didn't say anything about new sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[]