Talk:Men Going Their Own Way

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2024

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.

---

"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)

  Those reliable sources however do not dictate the overall tone and language used on Wikipedia as they are a separate entity from Wikipedia. Cheers. 95.98.235.60 (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2024 (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.

Misogynistic? (2)

Thread retitled from "Opinionation".

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)

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)

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)

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)

Well, how can I preserve the reliability of Wikipedia by correcting a protected mistake? Reddouble (talk) 21:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Find other reliable sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See the FAQ. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect? That's just, like, your opinion, man.

It's is also not the same as opinionated. Correctness is not simply the absence of opinions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC) edited 05:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I don’t see how it is “misogynistic” when someone opts to be a hermit? Leave them alone and refrain from slapping labels to demonise them instead. Steven1991 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so what about "heteropessimism?" Here is a book that talks about it: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003263883-3/incels-mgtow-heteropessimism-jacob-johanssen

" Incels and MGTOWs are one particularly extreme example of wider developments that Asa Seresin (2019) has named heteropessimism, which are described as “performative disaffiliations with heterosexuality, usually expressed in the form of regret, embarrassment, or hopelessness about straight experience” (ibid). Heteropessimism is a permanent articulation of disappointment with straight culture and heterosexuality while at the same time remaining deeply attached to them. As Seresin has argued, such discourses can be found within anti-/feminist circles and also in the LGBTQI community. Heteropessimism is thus a contemporary defence mechanism that is more widely apparent than in male communities." Simple and accurate definition of the core issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.43.24.110 (talk) 05:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Where does the source say MGTOW, or indeed heteropessimism, isn't misogynistic? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Misogyny label

Article talk pages are not a general discussion forum. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) ‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:19, 16 September 2024 (UTC) I can give you citations, it's called federal law. Jb41465 (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC) or are you looking for the actual paragraphs to be cited? Jb41465 (talk) 16:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) 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) 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) 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)

"Misogynist" in wikivoice

Thread retitled from "Avoid using "misogynist" in wikivoice".

• 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)

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)

I came here to say pretty much what Aquilion wrote. Per WP:NPOV we go with what a preponderance of high quality sources state. TarnishedPath^talk 03:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

Please refer to the FAQs at the top of this page. To put it bluntly, you're incorrect. TarnishedPath^talk 06:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

5 October 2024

I've never done any kind of editing on Wikipedia, so please be as kind as possible as I totally do this the wrong way. Can this be added as a reliable source? https://medium.com/@deeperunderstanding/mgtow-or-men-going-their-own-way-what-is-it-and-what-is-their-purpose-c4959aac9be0 JeremySWiki (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

...No? spintheer (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)