Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Reverts on January 8th

Hey @Dan Murphy can you please go in to more detail on why this material was reverted? My self and other editors have asked you for more details on why two of the sources removed in this revert are not appropriate for this article and I'm not aware that you've responded with reasoning based on Wikipedia guidelines. Other sources in this revert I haven't seen you contest. - Scarpy (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Freiewelt.net is the blog outlet of a right wing German political party/movement.Dan Murphy (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

That you use the phrase "right wing" as a pejorative comes with the wikiterritory, I suppose. The thing of it is... it's also irrelevant. Per WP:BIASED "...reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Now, would you like to try again and explain why the source cannot be considered reliable? Marteau (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with @Marteau on the Freie Welt, but am also okay with putting it on the RS Noticeboard or asking for an RfC regarding it's inclusion. @Dan Murphy in your response you didn't mention why you removed the material from Psychology Today and the BBC documentary. Can you explain why? Those had already been discussed previously (e.g. Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#Reliable sources) and were not ontested. - Scarpy (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be the same as "left wing." It is a tiny blog of a far-right political movement in Germany, designed to advance that movements agenda. So: Not academic, not to be trust. And, 2: Fringe and non-notable (much like this misogyist neologism.) The website's traffic in Germany is ranked 9,440 or so. I suggest RS noticeboard.Dan Murphy (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Scarpy and Marteau: Sometimes non-neutral sources can be appropriate, but WP:BIASED also says, "When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking." Freie Welt and a Psychology Today blog are not RS. I agree with Dan Murphy re:Free Welt so I won't beat a dead horse by rehashing the same argument. Please feel free to post it on the RS noticeboard since you disagree. As far as Psychology Today, their blogs have little to no editorial oversight. Permstrump (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@Permstrump: When you say "source" do you mean that the specific article cited has a right-wing bias, or that Freie Welt as an organization is has a right-wing bias? Since only specific non-contentious expository information about MGTOW is being cited, I don't how any overall bias of Freie Welt is relevant (I'm unfamiliar with Freie Welt other than this article, so I don't know if these characterizations of it are accurate). Do you have any specific information about Psychology Today's reputation for fact-checking and accuracy in their blogs? - Scarpy (talk) 11:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

As above, I strongly suggest any proposed use of that source be discussed at WP:RSN as it appears contentious. Also recommend notifying users here of any such discussion at RSN as a courtesy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I did it for you. Please take the discussion there. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Freiewelt.net. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Would it be too obnoxious to add entries for the PanAm Post and Psychology Today sources as well? Or should we wait until the first one is discussed? - Scarpy (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

MGTOW acceptance of female neurobiology

MGTOW philosophy is grounded in the under-researched field and often ignored phenomenon of human sexual dimorphism and its manifestations in human psychology and society. MGTOW believe to have come to terms with the notion that gynocentrism at the micro and marco levels of human interaction sprout from the biological nature of male and female human sexual behaviour. This behaviour is manifested in hypergamy, which MGTOW believe runs untethered in gynocentric societies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaerWolf (talk • contribs)

@FaerWolf: Could you provide any reliable sourcing for this statement?

I'll also note that in your edit to the article (which reads quite poorly, by the way: "[MGTOW] is male movement", "the basic tenets is that", etc) you removed a sourced statement from the lead to replace it with an unsourced one, and added more unsourced material below (second paragraph). (P.S. Just in case you're not already aware: you can sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes (like so: ~~~~) at the end of your message.) -- benzband (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits in the spirit of compromised offered on RSN

There hasn't been any follow up yet to the compromise suggested on RSN. I found some other sources discussing MGTOW in relation to herbivore men and "strikers" (Helen Smith's book) that puts this is a broader context to diminish the contentiousness of those comparisons. I'm going to be bold here and add these edits to see what people think. I feel pretty good now about putting the MGTOW <-> herbivore men relationship in context, but I'll admit the new Spanish source I found comparing MGTOW to "strikers" seems fairly WP:BIASED although I don't see that comparison as particularly contentious either. Would appreciate some discussion and collaborative editing rather than a blanket revert (like on January 8th) if you disagree, spent several hours discussing this, researching and writing. - Scarpy (talk) 03:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Contentiousness_of_comparing_MGTOW_to_Herbivore_Men isn't clear. The conclusion seems that the source is biased, but what does that have to do with whether this article is only about the anglospheric phenomenon known specifically as MGTOW, or whether this article is about all such men and groups? Because if it's the latter, the scope of this article is going to become unwieldy, but that doesn't mean MGTOW shouldn't be compared to other such phenomenon in other spheres. My concern is having the article say that all of them, anywhere, throughout history and prehistory, actually are/were MGTOW and what this article is about. MGTOW has its own characteristics. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisrus: I agree that's a valid concern and a bit of what I was trying to get at on on RSN, it seems there should be distinctions made between other groups of people that are confirmed bachelors for whatever reason and people who identify as MGTOW. To that extent I see relevance of explaining how MGTOW differs from other groups of confirmed bachelors as it's explained in appropriate third-party sources. - Scarpy (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

• The conclusion of that thread is clear - "Freie Welt" is definitely a fringe publication with an extreme editorial bias and questionable to non-existent fact-checking. It seems to mostly regurgitate Alternative for Germany talking point, with no separation between news and opinion. Not WP:RS.". The source is unreliable by wikipedia's standards--Cailil ^talk 10:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

So the scope includes herbivore men or just those who use the term MGTOW? Chrisrus (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@Chrisrus:, @Cailil: I believe we're all in agreement that Freie Welt is a biased source. As @Permstrump: pointed out earlier in the thread a WP:BIASED source can be included if the information cited is not unduly contentious, and I was trying to start a discussion about what is contentious about the information cite from Freie Welt. I'm disappointed that @Snowded: reverted all of these changes without discussing this point, and at loss for why the topic is being avoided. - Scarpy (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm restoring the edits from yesterday sans the information cited by Freie Welt and the information comparing MGTOW to Men on Strike. - Scarpy (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Shortening quotations

The citation section was significantly longer than the article, which seems unbalanced. I've now shortened the unusually lengthy quotations in this article, removing many of them entirely. For those concerned about losing this text, I'd note that the original versions of these quotes are now archived in Wikipedia's page history (specifically, in this revision). -- The Anome (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Good call. - Scarpy (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Krischik/MGTOW_(Men_Going_their_Own_Way)

Some work had been done here: User:Krischik/MGTOW_(Men_Going_their_Own_Way) that we might find useful in improving this article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a move in the right direction, compared to some of the previous offerings. However, although I realize this is frustrating for many of the contributors coming here, we still need to stick strictly to the criteria we have regarding WP:NPOV and WP:RS. As more reliable sources become available, this article can be expanded. See WP:WORKINPROGRESS. -- The Anome (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The "As self-described" section is totally unsourced OR. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, to give them some credit, they've sorta-kinda sourced it to mgtow.com, but as that's (a) a primary source, and (b) not a WP:RS, we wouldn't have been able to use it anyway, regardless of the arguable WP:SYN/WP:OR issues. But compared to some of the earlier contributions, they've come a lot closer to understanding the rules and polices that apply to content in Wikipedia articles. -- The Anome (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The La Gaceta article I believe is quoting MGTOW.com as translated in Spanish "declararse dueño de uno mismo, entrar en un lugar donde el varón moderno preserva y protege su propia soberanía por encima de todo. Es la manifestación de una palabra: NO. Es negarse a inclinarse, servir y arrodillarse por la oportunidad de ser tratado como un bien desechable." I think that's a translation of the opening paragraph here (but it doesn't give a citation in the article). It could get to the point where there's enough third party sources on just MGTOW.com that their forum could have their own Wikipedia article. - Scarpy (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's not quite true. Self-published material can be used as sources of information about themselves, and describing a person or group's official opinions or political position is a legitimate use of such sources. It's acceptable as long as the article doesn't rely primarily upon this stuff, which seems OK in this case. Reyk _YO! 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that there seems to be several MGTOW sites, but nothing that makes one more official than any of the others. - Scarpy (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Worry about those sites later. There are quite a few packages here to open among the usual WP:RSes.

Let's just put in the two WP:RS summaries and set them into the article with the others.

Let's keep each citation summary separated better into small paragraphs. It's important to see each as separate item.

Skip the websites for now and just keep the two good summaries just the most obvious WP:RS sources we still have many to go through above.

These two have good formats to set the pattern for the article. It's basically an examination of how the term or referent is described in the source.

As above, we need the context first and then how each describes the referent of this article differently.

If we want we can work each out first here on the talk page and transfer them to the article. Chrisrus (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the latest revision (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&direction=next&oldid=704039387 ) is an improvement. Not that I disagree with the content, it's just that it's not as readable as the version it replaces. To my eyes, it reads like the note cards one might use when researching the article rather than a finished article - it's a chronological listing of sources, and while that's important it detracts from readability, and the article should proceed by immportance/notability rather than by publication date. I'm not going to revert it just yet - I'd like to hear some other opinions first. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree here. It's Wikipedia, so really goes without saying that all of these should be from appropriate sources. If not, there's citations following them, so people can check those. I don't see an advantage to this change. - Scarpy (talk) 17:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's an improvement as it is (and I think the sources would be better integrated into the article bit by bit rather than replacing an entire controversial article with something from a userpage all at once.) First, the "as described by different sources" section-heading is redundant; that should cover the entire article. Second, if it's going to be sectioned, we need a lead that summarizes the topic -- the lead of the proposed new version seems too skimpy (it removed most of the description already there.) Third, I'm a bit dubious about how sources are categorized "sympathetic" or "negative"; we would need an additional secondary source describing the source in question to make that categorization. And finally, the real problem (and the really unfixable one, which is why it needs to be rolled back for now) is that it's just a bunch of mentions chained together. We need to work the sources into a coherent article that describes the topic according to reliable sources, weighted according to their reliability and relevance -- we can't just have a laundry-list of every place it's been in the news. --Aquillion (talk) 04:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

References to be incorporated in the article

Vice Magazine, the Daily Mail, Reason magazine, the Daily Mirror, the Sun, the Independent, the Irish Independent, Independent Journal Review, the Huffington Post, InfoWars,, Metro, the Daily Beast, PJ Media, the BBC, Tommy Sotomayor, the Tom Leykis Show, xoJane, Business Insider, the Conservative Woman, Women24, eldiario.es, WorldNetDaily, and others. One can also find a PDF of the Sunday Times article on the Web, but it apparently this does not contain the full contents (which would include diagrams and sidebar text).

References

Looking over some of these again these numbered sources mentioned either MGTOW or "men going their own way" in the main text of the article: 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29. Many of these (conservativewoman.co.uk) and others seem to be obviously biased, but wondering if we got all of the more WP:RS out of the list. - Scarpy (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

There is also a reference to MGTOW here: From great expectation to gross exploitation Review & Expositor May 2014 111: 134-147, doi:10.1177/0034637314526772 http://rae.sagepub.com/content/111/2/134

And just so everything is in one section, the archived lists of potential sources appropriate for this article are: Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 7#References mentioning MGTOW, Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 7#Reliable sources and Talk:Men_Going Their Own Way/Archive 8#Peer-reviewed status of scholarly sources. - Scarpy (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever made this article

I've tried to make this article long time ago and I couldn't because it said its creation was restricted by an administrator for some unknown reason(I still haven't gotten an answer). I don't know who or how created it and was able to stop its deletion, but great thanks to him. Krull The Eternal (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems to meet notability criteria but needs work

This seems to easily meet the notability criteria, but needs considerable work. In particular, i don't see it being accepted in the long term without considerable expansion of the article, particularly the addition of a section focusing on criticism of the movement (as I believe there is a considerable amount that is not reflected in the article contents). Without a criticism section this could be used to support a NPOV PROD.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  05:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Article improvement, not a WP:PROD is in order. Chrisrus (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? The whole page is almost entirely focused on criticism, and it's not going to ever expand if it gets deleted all the time in spite of meeting wikipedia's standards for existing to begin with. Not going to bother editing it myself because it'll just end up deleted just like anything else that doesn't have both a western-centric and liberal POV on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.211.107.249 (talk) 19:36, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

4 Level of MGTOW

The 4 level of MGTOW are missing on article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.208.243.166 (talk) 17:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Provide a source for them that meets WP:RS, and you can add them. -- The Anome (talk) 08:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

The Independent article,

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/reddit-mgtow-men-sex-sleep-women-manosphere-meninist-a7330276.html , addresses the four (or is it five?) levels, but doesn't go into much detail. In particular, it doesn't say what each of the levels are. From the article:

The ultimate goal for MGTOWs is total freedom from societal constraints - known as Level 4.

“Level 0” involves “taking the red pill” and recognising gender equality is a sham. Level one sees a man rejecting long-term relationships but engaging in sexual encounters, which he will reject in level two.

I'm not sure how to transform this into something coherent that doesn't pose more questions than it answers. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not every single board on Reddit deserves a Wikipedia article

This is not notable by any stretch of the word. Also the article reeks of being written solely by people from that Reddit board. --2601:2C4:C202:21D5:C20:47BC:F979:85D2 (talk) 00:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the article has already been debated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Men Going Their Own Way. Wikipedia has specific guidelines for notability (WP:GNG and others), and the consensus was that this is notable. This movement or group or whatever you want to call it isn't confined to reddit, but even if it were, notability is established by reliable, independent sources. The site hosting the board is irrelevant. Not every reddit board deserves an article, but that doesn't automatically mean that none of them do. If you would like change the article, based on reliable sources, to make it more neutral, that would be welcome. Grayfell (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

notability is easily established. As for bias, that might have merit but the OP here hasn't demonstrated anything of the kind.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  00:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

New RSes? - 2016

What's the consensus on these two articles?

• Institute for Family Studies - http://family-studies.org/maxim-masculinity-one-legacy-of-the-divorce-revolution/
• The Conservative Woman - http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/laura-perrins-feminists-and-male-supremacists-have-much-in-common-both-are-wrong/

- Scarpy (talk) 17:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

"The Institute for Family Studies"? Generic names like that make hard to keep track of these organizations... W. Bradford Wilcox is a recognized expert who can be cited, and who's opinions can be used with attribution. The Conservative Woman seems less clear, but also seems like it might be usable, with restraint. Wilcox, The Institute for Family Studies, The American Enterprise Institute, and Prager University (which published the video both links are in response to) all share a specific, relatively narrow ideological focus, and overlap enough that they can be a walled garden with some reliability issues, but it all depends on context. Grayfell (talk) 05:43, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Any thoughts on:

• Inside the world of men who've sworn never to sleep with women again - http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/reddit-mgtow-men-sex-sleep-women-manosphere-meninist-a7330276.html

- Scarpy (talk) 14:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

The Independent is a reliable source, so I have no objection to using it as a source for the article. I see that this article discusses the "4 levels", so we could treat that subject now that we have a RS for it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Swordfish. Looks like there was another that's also a reaction to the MGTOW reddit on the dailymail.

• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3810707/We-sexless-choice-Meet-men-going-way-hate-women-vowed-NEVER-sleep-again.html

- Scarpy (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like coverage is picking up.

• Helen Smith from PJ Media - https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/09/28/if-mtgow-is-fire-then-perhaps-feminism-is-gasoline/
• New York Times Live - http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2016/09/27/rejecting-relationships-with-women-meninists-create-an-online-community/
• MEL Magazine - http://features.wearemel.com/the-straight-men-who-want-nothing-to-do-with-women-2653920a42e8

- Scarpy (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The NYT and Hellen Smith pieces are basically just pointers to the Independent piece so they are of little use. The Mel Magazine piece is interesting, but what is Mel Magazine? Is it RS? The masthead (https://features.wearemel.com/about) says it was established in 2015 by the Dollar Shave Club. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

How odd. I added a mention of Mel to Dollar Shave Club based on a couple of WSJ mentions. As editorial content, it should be treated with caution, but it looks like it could be considered. Grayfell (talk) 22:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Have been getting Google Alerts and looking for RSes for this article. Two other potentials sources.

• One from News.com.au - The MGTOW group really, really don’t like women
• Another from dailyo.in - Why people don't want to make babies anymore (except Indians)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarpy (talk • contribs) 21:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

More information needed!

I am not sure which WP tag would be relevant to this article, Stub maybe? I think that this article is relatively short and is in need of a serious expansion. Although the article as it is currently is written, does provide some information on the subject of MGTOW, I do not believe that it provides a fully realized explanation to people unfamiliar with the subject, like myself. I am largely unfamiliar with this subject and think that a expanded realization of the core concepts, or overarching goals would be helpful and informative. Examples similar to the information provided on Herbivore men would also be helpful for pointing out key differences between this subculture(?) and other ones of similar, but distinct nature. For example:

• What separates MGTOW from Hikikomori?
• What separates MGTOW from an extreme version of a Misogynist?
• What separates MGTOW from MRM? (The MRM article provides a wealth of knowledge, and MGTOW should strive to meet MRM's level of detail.)

Surely these are topics that have been covered when discussing MGTOW, right? Why is there no mention, or even acknowledgement of these subjects or potential issues? I almost get the feeling that the article is dancing around some of these subjects in order to avoid heavy criticism from some of the more vocal, "progressive" areas of Wikipedia. Assuming that both this article, and this topic have enough intrinsic value and content to stand on its own, I think that it is very important that the article addresses these questions, common misconceptions and goals, and lays out a clear outline of what separates it from similar topics. I think that if articles like Cuckservative can survive multiple AfD's, and expand on a single, relatively recently coined term, then MGTOW should certainly also be expected to meet those same tests and criteria. The references in the MGTOW article appear to be reliable. What gives with this article being so short? Here are some ideas for editors more well versed in the subject:

• Who are prominent members of MGTOW?
• Who are its primary critics?
• How has it been received by the general public?
• When was it first popularized?
• Has it been accepted by the mainstream?
• How much coverage does it receive regularly by MSM?
• Does it have social gatherings?
• Is there a female version of MGTOW?
• Is there a rough estimate of the amount of people that subscribe to MGTOWs ideals?

I'm interested to see what everyone comes up with for the article, regardless of the content of the article. Sawta (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Sawta: These are all good questions, and I agree there is potential for expansion of this article. However, because of Wikipedia's content policies, you will need to find answers for them in citable reliable sources before they can be added to this article. My general impression is that the MGTOW movement is a relatively small fringe phenomenon that has attracted a disproportionate amount of interest in the MSM because of their entertainment value as a topic for novelty-of-the-month color pieces. But it's still interesting, even if only as a niche sociological phenomenon. -- The Anome (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Anome:, thanks for the quick response. That makes sense on the reliable sources part. I've added this article/talk page to my watchlist to see what information this article might bring. If anyone has information regarding some of the questions I've asked, but not necessarily the time to fully cite, ref the source, etc., feel free to ping me with the information and I'll see if I can make any worthwhile contributions. I'm still very new to the editing side/policy side of Wikipedia, but I'm willing to give it a shot. Sawta (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I added an activism stub as i think it is probably the most appropriate stub.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  03:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: feels wrong for this article to me. What are all of the choices? - Scarpy (talk) 07:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types  InsertCleverPhraseHere  09:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe org-stub, as some sources state that MGTOW is kind of "anti-activism." I could also maybe see health-stub, support-group-stub, philo-stub, international-org-stub. What do you think? - Scarpy (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that none really fit, or rather that multiple options fit, depending on your perspective. Philo-stub seems the closest, as i would define it broadly as an 'ideology' which is a sub-type of philosophy. It is too bad that there is no 'masculinity' stub or 'men's rights' stub, but I'd go with philo-stub for now, and I will look into a new stub type for men's-rights articles.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Philo is a better fit. - Scarpy (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

See Also: Asperger's Syndrome?

Under the "See Also" section for this article there is a link to "Asperger's Syndrome". Does anyone have an argument on how MGTOW is related to Asperger's Syndrome? Recommend deleting this "see also" reference. --Tavengen (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this Wikipedia entry's goal is to discredit the MGTOW community, by painting them as "furstared", "mysogynistics", "mentally deficients", etc.

Shelbrosse (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is to provide neutral, verifiable info about notable topics.

Yes, we occasionally have biased/conflicted editors and/or vandals come along. The link to Asperger's was added twice by an anonymous editor who also made two other nonconstructive edits. All four of them were reverted within a few hours. We clearly need to do a better job of eliminating the editors reverting those edits, if our goal is to discredit MGTOW.

Wikipedia does not say the members of MGTOW are frustrated (I assume that's what you meant by "furstared"). We say that Psychology Today said that. Which they did.

We don't say anything about misogynists ("mysogynistics") or the intellectually disabled ("mentally deficients"). - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The see also link was vandalism by Special:Contributions/86.7.41.193. It was correctly removed multiple times. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I've just blocked that IP for a bit. -- The Anome (talk) 15:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

There's no secondary source documenting it, but a prominent MGTOW is (to a degree) pro-autism in the sense that he's against shaming people with autism as an insult. - Scarpy (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Along with practically everyone else. Not relevant to this article.  InsertCleverPhraseHere  02:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Aspergers is not decision. Passive subtype will eventually notice the illogical reasoning and given enough time will eventually actively oppose this association.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.163.104 (talk • contribs) 15:20, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Who butchered this page?

How is it possible to go from the version from 27 december 2015 which was clear, with a really well structured and complete page : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Men_Going_Their_Own_Way&oldid=697024248

to the page as it is now, with only three short paragraphs?

Is it a reason to butcher this page like that, other than vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelbrosse (talk • contribs) 16:07, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Shelbrosse, and welcome to Wikipedia.

Looking through the article's history, I see several editors who were single purpose accounts, conflicted, had a strong point of view and/or had user names that imply a COI, several of whom vanished shortly after their stints with this article.

Against this background, the version you prefer seems to be the preferred version of of a conflicted, single purpose editor who vanished shortly after that and your first edit on Wikipedia is to pull that version (from over a year ago) out of nowhere with the baseless assumption that any changes to that version are butchery and/or vandalism.

The entire edit history of the page is available for your review (as you know). If there are particular edits that you feel are problematic, please discuss them here. If there is specific material that you feel should be included, discuss it here (if possible, indicate the reason given for removing it previously).

Other than that, pointing to an old version from 500 edits and over a year ago and saying: "Defend all the changes!" is a non-starter. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi SummerPhD,

To answer your question, I am a member of the MGTOW community, and I remember that a few years back the Wikipedia page was pretty well documented. It was the time I first heard about MGTOW, and Wikipedia was, at the time, the first informations I found about it.

It was clear, well explained, all the basics concepts were present and it gave me the desire to look it up in more detail by joining.

I was discussing a few days ago with friends, and when they asked what MGTOW was, I naturaly told them to look it up on Wikipedia to have a good overview.

But when we checked together, I realized what the MGTOW Wikipedia entry had become... It doesn't say anything anymore besides describing men as "frustrated" and that women are seen as "hypergamous and manipulative"...

I mean, all the phylosophy behind it is lost, and all that left is this "hate" part which is NOT representative of the movement AT ALL!

If I were new to MGTOW, and stumble across this Wikipedia entry, I'd only tell to myself: "OK, these MGTOW men are just a bunch of frustrated mysogynistics loosers". And it's probably the goal of this entry now, discredit the MGTOW community...

That's why I created an account on Wikipedia (I never had the use before) and ask here. Before asking I did some research in the history to pinpoint the moment this entry starts to deteriorate and posted the link.

Shelbrosse (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I get that you prefer the old version. However, you need to show that verifiable info was removed/is missing or that unverifiable info was added. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah this page was butchered. It should be changed back to what it was before. Tavengen (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back to Wikipedia, Tavengen. Thanks for your opinion. Please explain each addition, deletion and change you are requesting we undo.

(Actually, that's a rather absurd request I'm making, but no more absurd than you requesting we revert 500 edits based on the sweeping assessment that it is "butchery".) - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The cutting down of the page resulted from attempts to make sure it was in compliance with Wikipedia's content rules. If you can add more material to it that remains on-topic and passes the WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies, feel free to do so. However, if it doesn't meet these guidelines, it may well end up being removed by other editors. If anything about this is in doubt, please discuss it on this talk page before you try to make changes. -- The Anome (talk) 15:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Shelbrosse and Tavengen what's in any given Wikipedia article is going to be more or less an average of what's in journals (the kinds of things that show up in Google Scholar) and other periodicals (the kinds of things that show up in Google News) on a given topic, which where this article is at now. Wikipedia guidelines are written in that way to avoid editors taking a point of view and to avoid using primary sources (e.g. MGTOWs writing about MGTOW) and rather to report on the views given in news and journals. If I were you, one strategy to change the content of this article would be to engage journalists to write about MGTOW. You might have the best luck with the kind of periodicals that have already written on the topic (e.g. Vice, MEL, Animals) that tend to write on novel and fringe topics. Of course, any journalist will bring his or her own bias to the topic. I know from my work with articles for various other groups (e.g. addiction recovery groups, twelve-step groups and self-help groups for mental health) how frustrating this can be for members of groups that feel they're not being represented fairly. I do my best as an editor to help out, but we have to follow Wikipedia guidelines. - Scarpy (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring IPs

We have what looks to be a single IP editor, editing from a number of different UK mobile provider IP addresses, edit-warring there: I've semi-protected the article for a week to put a stop to this for now. Please let me know if this resumes. -- The Anome (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Taking off my admin hat, and addressing the quotation the IP was posting, I'd also note that holding beliefs like "women are locks, and men are keys" is not only (a) factually incorrect, but also (b) incredibly disrespectful, and as a result both socially and sexually off-putting to women, who aren't stupid, and can tell. -- The Anome (talk) 09:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with (b), not with (a). I don't think metaphors like this can be called "factually incorrect" - it is a generalization based on millenia of tradition and, honestly, biological necessity. It is disrespectful to say out loud, but that doesn't make it incorrect. Much like pointing out someone's personality flaws is by definition disrespectful (and "socially and sexually off-putting"), but it doesn't make such judgments incorrect. And, as you said, women aren't stupid. They fully realize that female sexual promiscuity is generally unattractive to men looking for a long-term relationship. No amount of "slut-walks" is going to change that. --Psychotic17 (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of patriarchal smears. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:50, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Another news story

This New York Magazine story might be of interest to those updating this article. -- The Anome (talk) 11:21, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Manosphere on the spectrum between pejorative to slanderous

Is anyone aware why does MGTOW get associated with manosphere? As far as I can say the term manosphere is percieved in between pejorative to slanderous when the user is opposed to MGTOW. And I am not aware of instance where MGTOW did suggest this association being true. Instead the labeling is being effectively used to boost the victimhood status and recover more men suffering from stockholm breakup syndrome and effectively recruit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.163.104 (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

We have two things going on here.

First is definitions. The manosphere is "a loose and informal network of blogs, forums and websites, with internet commentators focusing on issues relating to men and masculinity, as a male counterpart to feminism or in opposition to it." Pejorative is "expressing a negative connotation or a low opinion of someone or something, showing a lack of respect for someone or something." Slanderous implies that the statement is false and harmful to the group's image.

I can't really see a continuum from "pejorative to slanderous". The first is merely negative, the second is also false. More to the point, I don't see anything necessarily negative in the term "manosphere". Finally, it seems that MGTOW, an "online community... cautioning men against romantic relationships with women" fits quite easily in the definition of "manosphere".

Next up is the idea that Wikipedia does not say anything negative about anyone or anything. Pick your favorite despot from history and, with reliable sources, we say they "initiated World War II in Europe...and was central to the Holocaust" or "organised the 'Great Purge', in which millions...were interned in Gulag-run prisons, exiled or executed, often without due process."

That MGTOW is part of the manosphere is well-sourced at the moment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The continuum is in the perception shift of the word as it's disseminated. Typical use among interacting parties. Then third party watching the interaction. Population dissected by the value judgments backing the perception. Activism, counter activism, conformity by proxy value, active ignorance, susceptible apathy, etc. The perception is designed to shift and do the recruitment part.

Ok, but neither does Wikipedia tell you to go live in North Korea with a subconscious messaging although when your options are either North Korea or yet another North Korea, it may as well be pointless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.163.104 (talk • contribs) 14:25, May 3, 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot figure out what you are trying to say.

I see no indication that "manosphere" is pejorative, it seems to be neutral. The term seems to be accurate. It is well sourced. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

The word manosphere serves mostly as tool of "guilt by association" to slander MGTOW when activists present to well based groups with a specific value order and conformity. Taking such presentation and showing it to vulnerable third party and pointing out such association supercharges MGTOW recruitment among target groups. Similarly counter-activists building the publicity pointing out the nonconformity in a pejorative way. That taken and presented does the same recruitment. While the definition might be neutral it seems to me there is capture the flag fight going on to tilt it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.99.163.104 (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I still can't quite understand what you are saying. If I AM understanding, you are saying the "monosphere" label is used in presentations about MGTOW to make them look bad to established, conventional groups ("well based groups with a specific value order and conformity"?). You also seem to be saying that this negative portrayal is then used by MGTOW "recruitment".

IF that is what you are saying, it doesn't seem to be on-topic. If a description is neutral, accurate and sourced (as this seems to be) that anyone uses the description for whatever purpose is not material here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: I mentioned awhile back in Template talk:Manosphere that the term, from where it appears to have been coined, was used as a pejorative. From that talk page: "Searching Google Scholar, News Archive, Books and UseNet, the first time I can find anyone using the term is 2010 and it's on alt.support.shyness and seems to be a term of derision. The thread is about men who aren't having romantic success and it's used interchangeably with "omegasphere" and there's a similar connotation here a few months later. It starts to appear in blogs and news, again basically as a pejorative, first February, 2 2012 in Catholic publication, then about a month later the term is used by the SPLC and it seems to take off from there." Since then I most commonly see it used as an umbrella meaning something like "any predominately male space online where issues related to sex and gender are discussed." That being said, among self-published MGTOW sources I've seen plenty of them try to separate themselves from the term. So... yeah, it is a bit of a conundrum. On one had, I want to be sensitive to members of MGTOW that feel they are being unfairly represented or maligned, on the other hand it also seems to me that the mainstream usage of the term is more or less neutral and descriptive, which is how I think it's used here. - Scarpy (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

New RSes? - 2017

Already included

Thoughts on animalsmag?

• http://www.animalsmag.com/modern-male-sexuality/

-- Scarpy (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Missed this one from The Guardian.

• We need to talk about the online radicalisation of young, white men

- Scarpy (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A new Vice article.

• How 'Fight Club' Became the Ultimate Handbook for Men's Rights Activists.

- Scarpy (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed

• medicalresearch.com is planning a research brief in response to MGTOW.

"The second reason we wrote this research brief is the rise of the Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW) movement. This is a group of men who have publicly renounced interest in marriage and, in some cases, relationships with women altogether. Some MGTOW adherents feel mistreated by women; others feel they have to cede too much freedom if they opt for marriage. MGTOWers have reported bitter custody disputes and being unfairly deprived access to their own children. Given their publicly strident views of marriage, they have clashed publicly with my collaborator W. Bradford Wilcox. Our research brief is our response to MGTOW." - Scarpy (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• There's a chapter on MGTOW by Jie Liang Lin in Digital Environments: Ethnographic perspectives across global on- and offline spaces. - Scarpy (talk) 20:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Also here https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/books/9783839434970/9783839434970-007/9783839434970-007.pdf - Scarpy (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Alphas, Betas, and Incels: Theorizing the Masculinities of the Manosphere in Men and Masculinities. - Scarpy (talk) 18:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• HEROISM AND GENDER in New Male Studies - Scarpy (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Internalized Stereotype-Based Romantic Undesirability (ISRU) in Asian American Heterosexual Men Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the California School of Professional Psychology Alliant International University San Francisco - Scarpy (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• Black Pigeon Speaks: The Anatomy of the Worldview of an Alt-Right YouTuber By Zack Exley who I believe is this Zack Exley - Scarpy (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
• Are modern men becoming CELIBATE? Online movement is encouraging men to ignore women - Daily Express appears to be a tabloid, but came up in a news search. - Scarpy (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any case where we could cite an article from Medium? Why are Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)? It looks like there's a few that do. - Scarpy (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

• The Rise of the Alt-Right Movement this is "Student Research" but came up in the Google Scholar alerts. - Scarpy (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Overzealous archiving?

@Grayfell: I try to make sure as much as I contribute to Wikipedia as possible from digital periodicals is in webcitation or archive.org. It's just a good practice as they're so susceptible to bitrot, and when some Wikipedians see dead links their first impulse is to doubt or remove cited material. I'm going to restore these unless there's any objections. - Scarpy (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking. Working archive links are fine, of course, but these ones weren't. I think the "damage" was done by a bot in this case, so its nothing personal. Is webcitation.org permanently down, or is it just recurring bad luck on my part? The reason I called this overzealous is because they were flagged as dead when they weren't. The cite templates supports preemptively archiving links, so setting 'deadurl=no' solves half the problem, but since the webcitation.org archive links weren't working at all, and never seem to work for me, I removed them. Grayfell (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

The links are working for me, but it does seem like the pages on webcitation.org are rendering minus CSS so the formatting is all off, but the content is there. Checking them in archive.org they seem to be find. I'll restore the archive links to the best version for each with the deadurl="no" attribute. - Scarpy (talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

That's very odd. They still aren't even loading for me at all, and I just tried from a completely different device. It's treating it as though the site were completely down, and this has been going on for at least a few days. I have no idea why. Anyway, if you want to revert and restore these links, go ahead. Either something funky is happening on my end, or maybe it's intermittent? Do whatever you think is best. Grayfell (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

LGBT rights movement

This edit (and the extensive but unproductive edit summaries in the sequence) is a dispute over

MGTOW focus on [[self-ownership]] rather than changing the status quo, distinct from the [[men's rights movement]],<ref name="CBrianSmith"/> and see feminists, "[[white knight]]s", [[social justice warriors]], the [[LGBT rights movement]] and support for "[[safe space]]s" as obstacles to male self-ownership.<ref name="KashmiraGander"/>

Specifically, Thomas not Tom disputes the inclusion of the LGBT rights movement, saying it is unsourced. Grayfell says it is sourced and has asked TnT to take it to the talk page.

I have restored the text. The cited source says, "homosexuality isn't accepted" and "In this quest, obstacles include feminists; white knights (men who are “chivalrous” towards women); social justice warriors; those who are pro-LGBT rights and support safe spaces". It seems pretty clear to me.

TnT's arguments against the statement seem to have started with claims that their personal experience says this is not true and migrated to saying the source is not there. IMO, the source is reliable and the statement accurately reflects what the source says. The claim is therefore verifiable.

The only ways around this are: 1) Show the article is not a reliable source for the material. Unless a better source can be found, the material could be removed. 2) Show that the way we have phrased it does not reflect what the source says. Rewording the claim would be the next step. 3) Find another independent reliable source that contradicts this source. Re-writing the section to present the conflicting claims would be the next step.

Saying it is "not true" is not productive. Wikipedia hinges on verifiability not truth as we are not here to judge which side in a dispute is correct, only what reliable sources say.

Saying there is not a source for the statement is plainly inaccurate. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Thomas not Tom here to provide some input. Just because some female journalist who understands that her power over men is in danger claims something, it isn't automatically true. MGTOW is about men being free from women's manipulation. Some LGBT rights activists are opposed to MGTOW and we dislike and argue with these people. We have nothing against LGBT rights, just some of their leaders. As for my claim that I could not find the source, it is true that I could not find it as it was not named anything to do with the subject of this conversation (LGBT rights) and after reading the source, the original independent article cited nothing to back up these claims.Thomas not Tom (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The source for the statement is identified by the number in brackets at the end of the statement. Clicking the number will take you directly to the source.

The gender of the source's author is irrelevant. Wikipedia does not discriminate.

Your guess of the author's motives is irrelevant.

Reliable sources do not need to cite their sources. If a reliable source says something, it is verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

A journalist's opinion is not automatically reliable just because it agrees with yours. The claim is disparaging to our peaceful community. I have looked at the source and it is opinionated and biased against MGTOW. I am not saying that bias is wrong, however saying that a biased source is correct just because the website the article was posted on is on some whitelist is disingenuous. A news article still needs to cite its claims when making libellous accusations. The writer of this article was wrong and deliberately so.Thomas not Tom (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies. The "welcome" on your user talk page has more links for you, but we neutrally reflect what sources say and give mainstream or majority opinions more weight. This is certainly not libel. Sources are allowed to have a viewpoint (WP:BIASED), so long as they are not fringe ones. A reliable source's opinion is "automatically" reliable if the piece in question is (1) not an op-ed and (2) from a generally reliable source per WP:RS. You seem to not like it and thus claim it to be wrong. We cannot just remove things editors do not like. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:15, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I have not stated an opinion about MGTOW. How you have determined that mine matches what you perceive to be the opinion of the source would be an interesting question in a different forum. Here, it is immaterial.

The source is characterizing your pseudo-community in ways that are very similar to the ways other sources in the article characterize it. That you dislike the characterizations is immaterial.

The Independent is not on "some whitelist". We generally consider it to be a reliable source. If you disagree, please explain how you feel it falls short of the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. Reliable sources do not need to cite anything. We do not treat The New York Times, BBC, etc. the same way you might grade an undergrad's term paper. We use them as sources, not as stepping stones down an infinite path of the source, its sources, their sources, their sources and so on.

If you feel the author of the source has libeled you or any other individual, Wikipedia is not the place to settle your claim. I am not a lawyer, so I won't say whether anything meets the tests for libel. That said, claiming the author committed libel and is "wrong and deliberately so" is at the very least something you would need to support. People (you, me, the author) are wrong all the time. Saying someone has lied and deliberately wronged people is something else entirely.

Your options within the framework of Wikipedia are enumerated above. Ranting in the article is not an option. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is very obviously an op-ed rather than reporting and so I'd be wary of using it as a source, particularly for controversial statements accusing people of being anti-LGBT. I'd say you need a stronger source for that statement, or omit it altogether. Maybe if you could find a reliable report of the MGTOW people saying this about themselves. Reyk _YO! 20:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Well it does say that they see the LGBT rights movement as an obstacle, but doesn't explain how or give any examples. It doesn't make sense because gays also avoid such relationships with women and so how would that be a problem? We neither should nor have to include everything found in every source, we have to pick and choose. We should leave out facts that are neither well substantiated in the source and seem to make no sense or contradict other things in the article. This article says that MGTOW are heterosexuals who avoid women, so how would gays stand in the way of that or indeed have anything to do with that? As Jimbo Wales says, we are not unthinking monkeys that transfer everything, we are thinking humans that can make editorial judgments. I'll wait an appropriate amount of time for a substantive counter-argument and barring that will remove that part. Chrisrus (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

This argument does not accurately represent either MGTOW, or anti-gay sentiment in general. None of the beliefs, prejudices, or behaviors associated with any group, including MGTOW, are assumed to be based entirely on rational self-interest, and even if they were, attempting to determine that self-interest would be original research. At least, not in a way that is simplistically obvious to observers. The idea that anti-gay sentiment must be somehow both simple and rational is not supported by reality, and can be strongly challenged by the overwhelming majority of examples one might chose to highlight.

MGTOW isn't a blanket term for all heterosexual men who avoid relationships with women, this is a specific label for a more specific movement. This term is used relatively infrequently, and is applied to loosely-defined culture that has its own set of loosely-defined beliefs and norms. According to the source used, which is not an op-ed, those norms include non-acceptance of homosexuality and viewing pro-LGBT rights advocates as obstacles. Original research is not acceptable, of course, but if you've spent time on MGTOW forums and haven't seen these adversarial attitudes, perhaps you are looking through rose-colored glasses. Grayfell (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There seems to be an effort here to remove the claim. To that end, there are multiple avenues of approach. This approach seems to start with the content, then look at the sources: If there is something you want to add, look for sources to support it. If you dislike something that is included, look for reasons to remove it. This is directly contrary to what Wikipedia should be.

The better approach, IMO, is to simply look to what independent reliable sources say about the subject and report it. Like what the sources say? Great, make sure you don't over-sell it. Hate what the sources say? Too bad, make sure you don't bury it. You know better than the sources? Fantastic, but that has no place here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

My last post seems to have disappeared. Slightly strange but whatever. With regards to Grayfell's most recent addition, MGTOW is not a movement, it is a community of men who follow a similar lifestyle for similar reasons. We have no political aim as we recognise that our society will never change and free men. The "Verifiable" source that made the accusations made no attempts to substantiate its claims, never provided examples or research. A lifestyles page on a news website is not immutable truth, especially when the author of the source has made articles that contained blatant SJW rhetoric, case and point, here All of her articles are op-eds and should not be taken as gospel. We do not trust women. We don't care about LGBT people. Thomas not Tom (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Your POV appears to me you unable to neutrally edit this article. Statements like "... blatant SJW rhetoric ..." and "We do not trust women. We don't care about LGBT people." are red flags. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The source, though (gasp!) written by a woman (OMG!), is reliable.

It is not an op-ed piece, even though you don't like it. Your "blatant SJW rhetoric" is just another way of saying "I don't like it. Make her stop."

I get it: You don't trust women. Wikipedia, OTOH, does not discriminate based on gender. If you cannot accept that, Wikipedia simply isn't for you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas not Tom: I have bowed out of this discussion thus far because I agree with you, but also agree with SummerPhDv2.0, EvergreenFir and Grayfell. From what I've seen MGTOW say about themselves (on forums, on YouTube, etc), it would appear to me that that vast majority aren't specifically pro- or anti-LGBTQ, they're more or less just neutral on it, like it's not part of their platform or relevant to their cause. That being said, there are minorities that are pro- or anti-LGBTQ. The problem is on Wikipedia we can't uses sources like forums and YouTube. We have to work with what we've identified as reliable sources (as Wikipedia defines them) and those happen to contradict what seems obvious to me in my own research for this article. I will point you to the advice I gave Shelbrosse and Tavengen a few months back in an archived section of this talk page (Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 12#Who_butchered_this_page? ): your appeal has validity, but you're appealing to the wrong people. All Wikipedians can do is write encyclopedic articles based on the content in what we've identified as reliable sources, if those sources are biased you can expect Wikipedia to share the same bias. That's just baked in to how Wikipedia works and has nothing to do with MGTOW. My advice to you is to take your appeal to journalists instead of Wikipedians and see if they have an interest in writing a well-researched article on MGTOW that is neutral enough to correct these points. There's nothing we can do for you to correct this here, we're downstream of where the problem is. - Scarpy (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The cited article is in the lifestyle section of the website. It is subjective by nature as lifestyle varies from person to person based on opinions, therefore the article is an op-ed. To SummerPhD, even if the author were a man I would not trust him. This person has lied and made articles condemning freedom of expression. MGTOW rarely go into careers in journalism so our voices are not often heard in the media. We try to keep to ourselves and I wanted to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding. I even stopped editing the article as I accepted that it would make no difference. Quite simply we are innocent of homophobia until someone proves otherwise. I haven't edited the article in 28 hours and I think we have been arguing about different things. I have been talking about the accusation of opposition to LGBT rights, which you haven't disagreed about and you've been talking about the edits I've made and the rules, which I haven't argued against (apart from the source's accuracy). We've all been shooting at reflections. I also do not discriminate based on gender; that's why I don't date anyone. I realise that I said that I don't trust women and I won't even try to correct that statement because it would look like I'm grasping at straws. I really should have added, "in relationships" but I didn't and there's nothing I can do about that. What Scarpy is saying is fair enough. Thomas not Tom (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Just want to add something I just found. This is pretty telling. Barely anyone cared enough to click on it and nobody even voted. Thomas not Tom (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

So an article in The Independent is not a reliable source in your view, but a deleted Reddit post is? It seems clear that your intention here is to inject your POV into the article, not to contribute to an objective encyclopedia article. Please stop now. --ChiveFungi (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas not Tom: maybe you could get some people at Wikitribune interested, I'm just learning about it myself. I will add, the culture in Wikipedia (and I'd imagine by extension Wikitribune) is generally different than you will find on Reddit, YouTube, etc. It took me awhile to get used to it too. From time to time I will look over my early edits going back 10 years ago, and I'm surprised at how much less sarcastic and more dispassionate I am now. It took some getting used to, but I like it more. I kind of roll my eyes at much of what gets the most upvotes or likes or views on other platforms. It's all about who can out snark the other or make the best "pwnage" video, etc. I actually find Wikipedia--while far from perfect--to be more meritocratic. I apologize for the unsolicited advice here, but hope you'll take it in the spirit that it's intended. - Scarpy (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The Reddit post isn't deleted. How can someone who is not in out community claim to know what we believe? We simply do not care what people do. All that we do is advise men to choose freedom over mediocre pussy. Why would gay rights get in the way of that? The article from The Independent is an opinion piece and it is being used as a "objective" fact. This is a Wikipedia article on a group of people who have some shared opinions, shouldn't the opinions of these people be explained in such an article, not just the opinions of those who oppose them? Thomas not Tom (talk) 08:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

We need to be neutral in our use of reliable sources which means looking for reliable sources to refute what The Independent, which may be reliable but is clearly biased, is saying. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thomas not Tom: You have just used the term "mediocre pussy" to describe relationships with women. That's amazingly, incredibly disrespectful, to just about everyone. Please be WP:CIVIL when you're editing here. If you can't be civil, perhaps Wikipedia is not for you? -- The Anome (talk) 13:09, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

• • The last two sentences of that are legitimate and relevant. The rest of it... not a bit. Tom, I suggest you strike that part. Reyk _YO! 13:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
    • I restored the comment which ChiveFungi wrongly deleted because of the relevance of the last two sentences, @ChiveFungi: you might want to strike or remove the 1st part of Thomas' comment but don't remove relevant commentary just because you disagree with it. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

@RichardWeiss: Editing other people's comments is not permitted as far as I'm aware. I removed the comment because it contained nothing which would help improve the article. They've been told that they need to present a reliable source to support their claims, and instead they just created a post on Reddit to conduct their own original research. At this point they're just repeating themselves, so I don't see any reason not to delete their comments until they can say something productive. --ChiveFungi (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing a comment to remove offensive personal attacks is permitted, as would be removing a comment if the whole comment was a personal attack but in this case it was a mixture of a personal general attack, ie not against a specific user, and relevant opinion. As long as they stay on topic you don't have the right to remove the comment or part of it if you just think they aren't saying anything productive or are repeating themselves (repeating oneself on a wikipedia talk page is rife and would result in a mass purge of comments if banned) so please pnly remove if genuinely off-topic, which this wasn't, or an attack or something offensive. His last bit was highly relevant, regardless of whether others agree with it, which is why I reverted you. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 15:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I was using the phrase, "mediocre pussy" to refer to a phrase MGTOW often use when talking about blue pill men, namely SIMPs, which stands for "Suckers Idolising Mediocre Pussy". I'm not attacking anyone, just using terms I'm used to. I don't think such extreme formality is necessary on the talk page. Were this to be a proper formal debate I would have phrased it differently. As MGTOW is a community that hinges on purely opinion, I think that there is no objective fact about us. We have no political aims and our goals are entirely individual from MGTOW to MGTOW so all we can do in an article such as this is add sections to explain different opinions and interpretations. The only thing we all agree on is that relationships with women aren't worth it. Thomas not Tom (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Please do not use derogatory language here. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

What you call extreme formality is indeed required on this talk page, avoid saying things which others may feel insulted by and using foul language, so please write as if it is a proper formal debate. We edit this article according to wikipedia standards not MGTOW standards. We don't look for objective facts but verifiable information, and we try to keep it neutral so the article doesnt become either a praise piece or an attack piece, as with all our articles on controversial subjects. We want to let teh reader know what MGTOW is about. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 18:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Okay then I'll drop the derogatory language, however I would still like to know if it would be acceptable to add multiple paragraphs detailing the subsections of MGTOW and how they differ. I feel that the statement made in the article does not do the subject justice, as shown by this entire conversation. The truth is that the issue is not black and white. I even sometimes say that gays are the original MGTOW and we're just copying them. I feel that this article leaves no room for variation in opinion, which is ridiculous in such a context as this. MGTOW has no set rules. Thomas not Tom (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Find reliable sources first. That should be your starting point, not your personally familiarity with the topic. Articles primarily summarize reliable sources, and we do not publish original research. Reddit threads are not even close to reliable, for example. I do not know of any MGTOW-specific site which is reliable. Since this appears to be a point of confusion, I suggest you first post sources you find here, to this talk page, so we can discuss how to handle any proposed additions. Grayfell (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems like we've finally agreed. Thank you for your time. Thomas not Tom (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The sources says MGTOW view the LGBT rights movement adversarily, but we don't have to.

"Verifiability in reliable sources is absolutely critical. But elevating that to a religion which rejects truth is a huge mistake." - Jimbo WP:TRUTHMATTERS

For example: if a "datum", or piece of information is superfluous, uninteresting, highly questionable or knowably wrong; if its inclusion might reasonably be expected harm someone in some way outweighs any article improvement; if it makes no sense, if it doesn't constitute article improvement, we are under no obligation to include it EVEN IF if it appears in a WP:RS.

The claim is not well sourced in the source; it gives no examples nor cites the claim. It is a claim simply dropped in with no explanation. The reader will likely need some explanation we can pass along to the reader for this strange claim. Why would advocates of not advocating that kind of personal relationship with women see the LBGT rights movement as an obstacle to that? Gays also don't have such relationships with women.

Just as in the source, the claim makes no sense in this article. We are just importing a jarring confusing problem from the source into the article.'

The claim might not be true. It doesn't appear in any other source as far as we've seen, makes little sense, isn't well cited, explained or sourced in the source, makes no sense, can reasonably be expected to harm the reputation of these men by portraying them as anti-gay, which is widely seen as a form of bigotry.

I'll leave it there for comment for an appropriate amount of time for substantive reply and then remove the claim from this article. Chrisrus (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Trying to impose your own time-frame on others is arbitrary. I have seen this tactic many time on Wikipedia before, and I've never seen it work.

"Elevating Quotes from 'Jimbo' to religious scripture is not appropriate or helpful" - Grayfell (just now, right here).

We do not expect sources to cite sources, which must cite sources and so on all the way down. This doesn't appear to me to be a particularly strange or outlandish claim, and as a point of criticism it's very mild, so I'm going to need a reason, based on sources, to accept that this makes no sense. The comments in this very discussion have been far more generally hostile, and damning to the MGTOW movement, than the comments about LGBT rights from the source. Saying that people cannot be anti-gay because they are themselves gay, or because they have trans fetishes is incredibly tone deaf, logically tortured, and itself anti-gay. Implying, as you do here, that being anti-gay might not be a form of bigotry is doing your argument no favors, either. Let's not even get into the anti-women slurs.

In context, this comment from the source makes sense to me, and it presumably made sense to the author of the article, so...

We are concerned with accurately reflecting sources, not shielding a vaguely defined group from any and all criticism. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobody here has even implied that homophobia is not a form of bigotry. The reason why I have been disputing this claim is because it is. Thomas not Tom (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources do not need to cite sources, provide examples or convince you. The claim is in no way out of line with a pro-alt-right, anti-feminist, anti-"social justice warriors", anti-"safe spaces".

Removing it based on your animosity to the claim on a timetable you have established unless it meets criteria you have established is antithetical to the essential nature of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:47, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Lets put the unfortunate comments made by editors representing MGTOW aside for a moment--which I agree are winning them no points here. There's really good reason to tag this claim with "Dubious" or "POV Statement." In the context it's made by the author, it's a value judgement and therefore non-neutral. While I know, if thinking in certain stereotypes, this claim is "in no way out of line" with them, that kind of thinking is a logical fallacy and shouldn't be a justification for keeping a contentious claim in an article without recognizing that it's been challenged. - Scarpy (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not dubious. It's a plain-language statement made about the group by a reliable source. It's not meaningfully a value judgement, and this tag doesn't improve the article, because nothing posted here on talk sufficiently explains why it should ignored. It doesn't actually matter whether or not it's in line with stereotypes, that was my (admittedly poorly explained) point. There is no specific reason to present this as disputed, because the only people disputing, as far as I can see, are people on this talk page. It has not been challenged by sources, and that's the challenge that needs to happen for this to be changed. Without that, this is tag is more POV than the statement it identifies. Grayfell (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

To clarify, the claim is in no way out of line with the other claims (pro-alt-right, anti-feminist, etc.) not in that it fits the angry white man stereotype but in that each one, on its own, is a statement that the group counters a progressive movement. Of them, the only one being disputed is the anti-LGBT one. Every possible argument has been put forward against it: claims of personal experience, written by (gasp!) a woman, claims she is a "social justice warrior", claims she is trying to smear the group (with 1 out of 5 statements, but the rest of the article is fine...), claims it's an editorial, and a bunch more.

To be clear, it does seem to be true that the author is a woman. If that's a problem for you, Wikipedia is not for you. The rest of the claims seem to be throwing things at the wall to see what sticks. Now we're down to a request to mark it as "dubious" or "POV" (as a stepping stone toward removing it). There is nothing to indicate that the statement is in any way dubious, the author's POV, doubtful, contrary, inexplicable, pro-"SJW", anti-MGTOW, feminist, liberal or anything else. It is presented in the same context and tone as the 4 other statements.

There does not appear to be any identifiable organized oversight group here with a mission statement/guiding principles/manifesto/whatever. There is virtually nothing that can be said to be true of each and every self-proclaimed member. The article makes that clear. The group is quite far out of the mainstream and fragmented enough that there is no reason to believe that whatever individual MGTOW forum you frequent is the orthodoxy and that other forums are not true MGOTWs. This is Wikipedia. Reliable sources -- even if contrary to your experience, written by someone who wrote something else you don't like or even written by a woman -- are reliable sources. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

It wasn't the fact that the author was a woman that makes it incorrect, but rather the fact that as, from what we can reasonably assume, a heterosexual woman, she has a personal interest in discouraging men from pursuing the MGTOW movement and shaming such as this is a relatively popular tactic. In addition, your assertion that there is nothing to indicate that the author subscribes to SJW ideology is incorrect. Earlier I referred to another of her articles, specifically one on cultural appropriation; a popular argument in SJW circles. In fact a belief in cultural appropriation is a phenomenon witnessed only in SJWs. Thomas not Tom (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

We have no interest in your inane ramblings about how women and SJWs are out to get you. Provide reliable sources to back up your claims then we can talk. --ChiveFungi (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

If we're going to assume all of that and string together assumptions based on that to assume that the author must have a bias, wouldn't it be just as easy to assume that all MGTOW are aliens trying to depopulate the planet to pave the way for a colony? - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:55, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, I can't defend the ad hominems and overall incivility from the MGTOW editors on this talk page, and I'm not trying to. I'm fairly offended that you're trying to paint me with that brush here, and I'm asking both of you to please stop with that now.

Again, putting that aside for a moment. In the context that it's currently used in this article, does come up as a value judgement to me, especially in contrast to the much more careful language in the following section. "According to Roselina Salemi...," "Mack Lamoureux writing in Vice...," "In a DELFI article MGTOW are described as..." etc. It's like in one context the article is very measured in it's descriptions and criticism but here is making a rather blanket statement about everyone in the group. So, again, I'm asking you to put aside the derogatory comments made by the MGTOW editors here, there is a small part of their claim that has merit. This is actually done at other points in this article where we cite Kashmira Gander's article. The unqualified statement as to imply this is not just the author's opinion but that all MGTOW are like this is dubious. We should be more measured in our language. - Scarpy (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

If did that, if we said that the author made that claim, that seems like it could work.

Try it. Let's see how it would look. Chrisrus (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we can imagine how it would look easily enough. It would look like weasel wording. The "Herbavore men" subsection needs substantial work. The Independent article barely mentions herbivore men, and doesn't say they are "role models". Copying that style elsewhere in the article would be a step in the wrong direction. Grayfell (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm really impressed with the section on Herbivore Men, and I don't seen an instance of weasel wording there. It actually strikes me as a section taking great pains to avoid weasel wording. It conveys that there's a similarity between MGTOW and Herbivore Men, while at the same time there are differences and the differences are interesting (cultural, ideological, etc). It's true that Kashmira uses the term "heros" instead of "role models." If you want to use that exact wording (e.g. heroes), I'm fine with it. I thought "role models" conveyed the point without sounding too WP:PEACOCK. - Scarpy (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

My biggest problem with the section is that it reads like it takes great pains to avoid weasel words. It reads like a compromise, instead of a summary of the sources. Each point is presented as equally important with disregard for the weight and context provided by each sources. I have other issues with it, and distilling every sentence to "X from Y says Z" is stilted to the point of distraction, but it's not entirely related to the above issue.

If we accept Gander's quotes about feminists, "white knights", and social justice warriors, why are we backing away from them regarding LGBT rights? Applying this standard based on some editors' preference is not neutral. We should not reject a journalist's statements just because some editor's WP:OR doesn't support it. That's basically what's being proposed, here. Saying this is an opinion doesn't transform it into an opinion. Artificially adding distancing language to a relatively straightforward comment from a news article undermines the neutrality of the article. Grayfell (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say the opposite, citing the author improves the neutrality of the article. I agree the "X said Y" format is exacting, but it's the result of a lot of arguments like this on the talk page regarding making blanket statements about MGTOW. I think there's POV-pushing on both sides here. Some of these articles are more positive on the topic than others. Some of this is would be less salient if we would include information derived from other sources (many options are linked in above sections on this talk page). I had planned to make some changes to the article based on those. As usual, I was so overwhelmed with the beauty, goodwill, and warmness of collaborating with other Wikipedia editors I was just too blissed out to get much work done. Scarpy (talk) 18:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Really this part of the article is weasel worded. It says "MGTOW see feminists..." this is an example of an unsupported attribution. WP:WEASEL Thomas not Tom (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

This article seems to accurately represent the source's interpretation and analysis.

You seem to have moved to a new claim: first you said this wasn't sourced, then it was that it wasn't true because it was just a claim from "some female journalist who understands that her power over men is in danger". Next it was libellous, opinionated, biased, "disparaging to (your) peaceful community" and deliberately wrong. Your next approach was that we should dismiss it because the source does not provide citations, doesn't provide examples or research, is just a lifestyles page, and all of the authors articles are op-ed pieces with "blatant SJW rhetoric" (and, of course, you can't trust women). Then the author became a liar who condemns freedom of expression. Then the author is someone who opposes MGTOW. Next there are no objective facts about MGTOW. Then we are informed that the author is a heterosexual woman who "has a personal interest in discouraging men from pursuing the MGTOW movement and shaming such".

Now it's weasel wording. You've thrown a lot of ideas against the wall and none of them stuck. To me it seems that your goal is to remove the claim rather than accurately report what reliable sources say. I believe that you feel you are right and that the claim is a great wrong that you want to fix. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:48, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say that it wasn't sourced; I said that I couldn't find the source, this being because I was new to editing Wikipedia articles. Once I realised that it was a direct quote from an article I tried to change it so that it is presented as an opinion rather than a fact. You seem to be behind. About a day into this argument I stopped saying that we should omit it. The piece is opinionated and biased so should be presented as such. The author never became a liar; I thought from the beginning that she was. The claim is a lie. I have not even mentioned freedom of expression as that is irrelevant to this issue. The author opposed MGTOW from the start. There have never been objective "Tenets" or something that we must follow; to be a MGTOW all one has do is avoid long term relationships with women and consider oneself MGTOW. My opinions haven't changed and neither have my claims; what have changed are the arguments used. If I had kept repeating the same thing over and over you would be criticising me too. The wording leaves no room for variation within the group. The "blatant SJW rhetoric" is a popular SJW talking point, which in the article is presented from the SJW point of view. You seem to be implying that I am using the term SJW in a demeaning way, however this is the title that they use themselves. You have simply recapped my arguments and not refuted them. In the verifiability page, it says, "The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source." since the article only states it and moves on, it seems to have given this particular issue very little scrutiny. On another note, there have been two attempts by grayfell to accuse other users personally of homophobia, presumably in an attempt to invalidate our claims.Thomas not Tom (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

SJW is a pejorative. Extremely few people sincerely call themselves that. Some apply it to themselves ironically, to attempt to reclaim the term, or facetiously to mock people who overuse it by applying it to everyone they disagree with. Presenting something's "SJW" status as a factual claim is about as persuasive as calling someone a "doodiehead", and only slightly more mature.

I have pointed out instances where comments here have been homophobic. Is that an accusation? Sure, okay, but that doesn't make it incorrect, nor does it make those comments acceptable. When you say that "MGTOW do not oppose lgbt rights. Many of us are gay or have trans fetishes", you are introducing faulty logic and offensively dehumanizing language into a place that is intended to discuss how to improve this article. You are accountable for your words and actions here. This argument is invalid whether I point it out or not, and explicitly rejecting these comments is intended to improve the article. If you think this is just a petty rhetorical tactic, you're missing the point. Grayfell (talk) 22:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Thomas not Tom: I've been trying really hard to get MGTOW a fair shake here on Wikipedia. The exacting back-and-forths about who said what when and who was the victim and who was the big meanie and all of that isn't helping. I hate that it's come to this, but I feel like an attorney standing next to a client who's just said something highly unadvised in front of a jury (for about the 13th time). The only difference is that I'm a volunteer and attorneys get paid. I did a lot of heavy-lifting for this article, but my patience for it is wearing thin and it's about to go off my watchlist. I'd encourage you to let this dispute go. Take that how you will. Thanks. - Scarpy (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You raise an important point. The actions of one or two Wikipedia editors, no matter how good or bad those actions might be, does not reflect on the entire movement. We work with what we have, and figuring out how to handle sources is difficult enough. We cannot let disruptive and offensive comments slide, however. This is a collaborative project, and looking the other way on this kind of thing isn't mature and isn't compatible with Wikipedia's goals. Grayfell (talk) 23:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you here. Maybe unwatching is not the best answer. I'd say if it continues I'll follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE and take it to the user space talk page and if it continues to continue I'll take it to ANI (unless someone beats me to it). - Scarpy (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Antifeminism suggested link

My removal of this with this summary: "The article itself states the movement distances itself from anti-feminism and been described to be more similar to "separatist feminism". Having "Antifeminism" as a related article contradicts this as it has nothing to do with it."

Reversion by @Grayfell: with their own summary "Clearly relevant to article. "MGTOW are described as a protest against feminist laws..." and "MGTOW see feminists ... as obstacles to male self-ownership.""

I stand by my first point. Third party input would be nice. UaMaol (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Where does the article actually say that the movement distances itself from anti-feminism? Sources seem to suggest the opposite. The Mel Magazine source cites an unreliable blog post from a pick-up artist likening them to Andrea Dworkin, who's become a mythical boogieman to modern antifeminists. Whether or not this opinion belongs is debatable, but the opinion is not something Wikipedia (or MGTOW for that matter) should treat as a fact. I don't see any reliable source actually supporting that comparison, nor do I see a reliable source supporting this from within the movement. That article cites a sociologist who says "[according to MGTOW] women, feminism and pickup artists are all the problems". It also cites the movement (such as it is) blaming "feminist double standards" for grievances.

The article twice mentions some form of opposition to feminism, and sources cited by the article further support this connection. This discussion of feminism in the article, and the contrast to feminism discussed by multiple sources, suggests that the antifeminism article would be a useful source of related information. Grayfell (talk) 01:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"linked reference says nothing of the sort"[1]

The edit removed: "MGTOW see feminists, "white knights", "[[social justice warriors]]", the [[LGBT rights movement]] and support for [[safe spaces]] as obstacles to male self-ownership.<ref name="KashmiraGander"/>[2]"

The source says, "In this quest, obstacles include feminists; white knights (men who are “chivalrous” towards women); social justice warriors; those who are pro-LGBT rights and support safe spaces, amongst other things."

The linked reference says something very much of the sort. If you feel there is some nuance or detail of conflict between the two, you will need to discuss it here. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@SummerPhDv2.0: My apologies, I searched the article for "ownership" and found nothing, and prematurely concluded that the refence did not back up the bit that I removed. Thank you for fixing it. Amin (Talk) 22:12, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Your levels 3 and 4 are just wrong

Levels 3 and 4 are way off base and show a bias. Someone please edit or remove them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Armstrongtj (talk • contribs) 02:25, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The information is attributed to this source, which is provided as a citation. If you know of another reliable source which discusses this, let's see it. Grayfell (talk) 02:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem in "Reception"

It's entirely negative. This doesn't reflect reality. Give the other side their voice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8c:c001:98bf:e429:4a8:abb2:9324 (talk • contribs) 03:26, September 13, 2018 (UTC)

To do so, we would need an independent reliable source discussing any positive reception. Please note: self-published sources (forum postings, blogs, etc.) will not be acceptable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Blog Sources

"In a write-in article at the Vox Populi section of the Lithuanian-language version of news portal DELFI, which article was originally published in an anonymous blog (since deleted)" My uncle's brother's mother's late cousin twice removed says this is a blog so not reliable. 194.207.86.26 (talk) 12:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Credentials?

the phrase "Researcher Barb MacQuarrie" is referenced as an authority when actually she's not an authority in anything, and has no credentials. It's the equivalent of saying "my smart friend barbara who works for a college says...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.212.199.34 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

MacQuarrie is the Community Director at Centre for Research & Education on Violence against Women & Children at University of Western Ontario. I've clarified that she isn't just "my smart friend" in the article. As a recipient of the Order of Ontario, we could probably establish a stub article, based on the criteria at WP:NACADEMIC, if that would be helpful. - SummerPhD^v2.0 23:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"on Violence against Women & Children". What exactly does MGTOW have to do with her specialty? Separatism is not violence. Hermits living on a mountain are the original MGTOW, monks in monasteries. I challenge you to explain how such lifestyles in any way infringe upon women or children. Also Order of Ontario is no different than being knighted. What exactly does that appeal to authority have to do with evidence behind her biased claims? What research has she actually done beyond browsing the web sites? What makes her qualified to be the final word on the subject? She's a feminist. Of course she's going to say male separatism is really sad, but I don't see any difference between MGTOW and spinsters. Deciding to be single is a very personal choice, and it's only controversial because men are doing it.

Contradictions in the article

Right, new guy on Wikipedia, and full disclosure, someone who's adopted the MGTOW lifestyle. I have to echo that the article is quite negative, but that is unsurprising given the overall views of society at large on the subject of MGTOW. However, there are a few issues in the article that could be solved. An earlier attempt by me got reverted with a request to turn to this page... So here I am!

- The History header correctly states that the origins are somewhat murky. It's basically just a group of disillusioned men with similar lifestyles that found each other online. However further down on the Reception header, we read this: "Leah Morrigan states that the MGTOW founder Sandman's videos proclaim his bitter, indiscriminate hate towards women". Sandman is just a MGTOW content creator on Youtube. A prolific one, definitely and a big voice in the community around it, but far from the founder. If you'd ask him directly, he'd agree.

- The header states that MGTOW "is a mostly pseudonymous online community". I'd expand that to "a lifestyle choice for men with a pseudonymous online community" to better reflect that it isn't just an internet thing.

- The History header seems to function as a listing for where the community gathers. If so, it may be wise to also include the most notable forum at mgtow.com - it's not the only one, but it is the biggest. (and incidentally also the one with the most heated discussions I've come across).

- While it's not incorrect, it's unusual to see the "Some MGTOW members advocate having sex with prostitutes or sex dolls" not being cited. Everything else seems to be.

- Under the relations with other groups header: The "while the LGBT rights movement and support for safe spaces are seen as obstacles to male self-ownership" is not correctly quoted from the source article, and used out-of-context. Actual quote from the article:"As the MGTOW movement is entangled with alt-right and libertarian politics, the third step sees the man focusing on earning money in order to sustain himself. In this quest, obstacles include feminists; white knights (men who are "chivalrous" towards women); social justice warriors; those who are pro-LGBT rights and support safe spaces, amongst other things."

In other words, it is in the labor market where the problem arises with these groups, since they tend to have a privileged status due to "equal opportunity" job postings. In my experience, MGTOW is neutral on LGBT issues. Individual choice and rejecting societal standards is at the core of the philosophy after all.

- Under the "Reception" header: "Some writers have generally held..." two generalizations - perhaps change that to either "Writers generally hold..." or "Some writers have held...".

- Not sure how to counter plain untruths, but the SPCL's placing of MGTOW "on the borders of the hateful incel community" is a little off. Incel means Involuntary Celibate. MGTOW by definition are Voluntary Celibates - if they are celibate at all.

- And while on the SPCL, them identifying MGTOW as a "male supremacist group"? MGTOW advocates selfownership and selfvalidation. At worst, that makes it an isolationist lifestyle. MGTOW is not about activism, that is and always has been the domain of the MRA. And MGTOW is not organized, it has no hierarchy. So even calling it a "group" is sketchy. It's as much a group as Anonymous is, and organizes in much the same manner.

I suppose it's difficult to get good primary sources on MGTOW, since it is a primarily online community, with few who speak up outside of it. Would a recent direct CNN interview be accepted as a credible source?

AeternusDoleo (talk) 21:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Come back when you have some citations and fewer grievances.--Jorm (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not really grievances aside from the SPLC commentary, merely concerns about plain untruths and a few style issues. But, ask and you shall receive! (And damn, this isn't easy.)

- On Sandman being the "founder of MGTOW": I know Youtube's generally not considered a credible source, but this is literally the primary source to debunk Sandman being the founder of MGTOW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6CnYhD20r4 - Sandman himself on the history of MGTOW: Sandman clearly states that MGTOW predates his own content, and links to sources that predate his content from there.

- Could not find much information on MGTOW beyond the internet aside from a meeting in London in 2017, nothing since. Can't disprove that one.

- On the SPLC, I'll try contacting them directly to figure out what's going on there. They're either misinformed or disingenuous. But if Wiki accepts them as a source, then I'll need to take that up with them. Needs to be corrected one way or another.

- Other points were already motivated by citing the original source, or aren't about the factual content, but the style.

Question that was missed above, would a recent CNN interview with several MGTOW members be considered a credible source? I can work with that one to expand the article a bit (although given my first edits not being well received, will probably run it by here first). AeternusDoleo (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Youtube videos are never acceptable sources, nor are forums, or self-published blog posts.--Jorm (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Negative in voice?

This article seems quite negative in voice. There should be an effort made to balance this out. MGTOW isn't hate against women as much as it's apathy toward them overall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.196.115 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

What you're asking for is false balance. If reliable sources report primarily negative things about a group/movement, the Wikipedia article is going to say primarily negative things. See also WP:BALANCE. --ChiveFungi (talk) 19:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The "Reliable Sources" would be reliable if they were debating some of the criticisms that MGTOWs have made of relationships, instead of resorting to name-calling and shaming tactics. This type of behavior is ironically what started the MGTOW movement, and continues to fuel it.65.94.90.229 (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

No. Reliable sources are reliable if they meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS. If a blog gives a detailed, balanced discussion of MGTOWs criticisms of the world, it would not be a reliable source; it is still a blog and Wikipedia should not cite it. If the New York Times said that MGTOW is a cheese sandwich, it is a reliable source and Wikipedia should state that MGTOW is a cheese sandwich, citing the New York Times. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Reference number 10 in the Wikipedia article refers to VICE article (reliable source) which takes a quote from a BLOG written by Matt Forney (not a reliable source). Should this still be cited by Wikipedia?69.158.72.144 (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, this is perfectly normal. Reliable, secondary sources are allowed to cite unreliable primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't allow Wikipedia editors to perform original research, instead we cite research performed by reliable sources. If this research involves analyzing primary sources and opinions, so be it. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Not exactly. The stretch "The movement has been described as "hateful, militant extremists"." is partial and based on only one source. Written by Dylan Love a tech reporter for Business Insider, a financial and business news website. Apparently does not satisfy reliable sources for an assertion of this weight.Guilherme Burn (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

That quote was referring to the Red Pill, a different community than MGTOW. For this reason I've removed it. It's a very strong statement, and if it is indeed about MGTOW and I am wrong it should have a very strong reliable source, maybe even two for good measure. MutchyMan112 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This article should just be called WIKIPEDIA editors hate MGTOW, that would be more accurate. In all honesty though, I commend you all, on a job well done, this article contains so little about MGTOW that anyone actually interested in knowing about MGTOW will just go look up what MGTOW say on their own which is a whole lot better than any fake "neutrality", editors can cook up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamermanu (talk • contribs) 12:21, 20 November 2018 (UTC) — Dreamermanu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Doug Weller talk 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article. Other than hating everything about the article, do you have any specific suggestions for how we might improve the article?

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles must reflect what independent reliable sources say about a subject. As a result, any proposed additions must cite a reliable source which directly states what you wish to add. Also, any material you wish to remove which does reflect content in reliable sources will need solid reasons for doing so.

Wikipedia articles are meant to reflect a neutral point of view. This does not mean the article will present a false balance (such as providing equal space for opposing points of view). If most coverage in reliable sources is negative, most of the content in the article will be as well. This does not mean coverage will be neutral, it means our presentation will be: when sources describe someone as a genocidal maniac or a film as possibly being the worst ever made, our articles will attempt to accurately reflect that consensus.

TL;DR version: This article reflects what independent reliable sources say about MGTOW. If you disagree or have additional sources, please discuss specifics. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Funny how almost all reliable and independent sources used in the article also say some positive things about movement, but naturally not a single one of them mentioned. So much for neutral presentation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.0.192.171 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Is there specific material in independent reliable sources that you would propose adding to the article, or are you content to just mope? - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

mgtow.com has a "credo" , or definition for MGTOW on it's mainpage.

"MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way - is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: "No". Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a man is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn't. In other words . . . common sense for men."

Would this be a valid reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.245.214.81 (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit: If it qualifies, it would probably be best put in the "Beliefs" section.

No. It is not remotely a valid reference. It's a primary source. --Jorm (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, there isn't an official MGTOW organization, so I'm not sure what its main page would be. Thus we have several problems: If it is the organization's "official" page, it's both primary source and not independent of the subject.

If the site isn't "official", who wrote/published it? If we don't know, it certainly is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Got rid of the sun

Since the sun wrote a biased article, I put the parallel point to made clear why I removed that POV trash.

For men who claim to be removing women from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For Nutritionist who claim to be removing Sugars from their lives, they talk a lot about them... For Alcoholics Anonymous who claim to be removing Alcohols from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For Rape survivors who claim to be removing Rape from their lives, they sure love talking about them. For feminist women who claim to be removing macho men from their lives, they sure love talking about them.

That statement was made on POV and that must be avoided at all cost, the sun made a POV article and should not be cited at all.--FaustoLG (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

The Sun is not a reliable source. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 16:48, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

About anything. Ever. 2A01:CB0C:CD:D800:459D:C5BD:A2FB:BB54 (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

SPLC in lead

I object to user:Jorman removing my suggestion that part of the abstract be relocated further into the article. I believe this is the place to discuss such a move, and his reversion of my comments because "talk is not a forum" to be totally inappropriate.

It is here that we discuss the structure and contents of an article. And for most people, this "talk page" discussion operates as a forum where their suggestions and opinions about the article content and organization can be heard and answered.

I have edited the article to move the last sentence about the SPLC asserting MGTOW as "on the borders of the hateful incel community" from the Intro to the Reception section.

1. The statement by SPLC that MGTOW is "hateful" appearing in the Intro is not necessary. It appears later in the article with "Reception" information.

2. This SPLC information is equal to the items in the Reception section, and as such should not be singled out in the introduction. IF anything about the reception of MGTOW goes in the intro, it should be a summary of ALL items, not a specific item.

3. The statement is designed to stir up prejudice on the part of the reader. It accuses the organization of being "hateful", a very negative word. It should not stand alone in the intro without any balancing comment.

4. Applying a "hateful" label using the auspices of a third party is a know propaganda technique. People recognizing this pattern may give reduced credibility to the article.

5. A opinion from one organization (SPLC) about another organization (MHTOW) does not belong in the Intro when both organizations are of equal province and at odds with each other (unless the article is about the conflict between the two). Name calling almost never belongs in an Intro.

Finally, reverting an edit a moment after being posted does not give the community time to read things like this discussion, or for the reverter to read his user page for an explanation of the edit.

Slow down people!!! Your zealous haste is just another symptom of desire to impose your beliefs on what should be a widely supported, balanced article! HiTechHiTouch (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

(1) The lead summarises the contents of the body; all the information it contains should appear later in the article.

(2) Not all sources are of equal weight. The SPLC are a particularly authoritative source in this topic area.

(3) It's a direct quote from the source, taken in context. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, just because one comment is negative does not mean we need to feature a contrasting positive comment. No reliable source promotes MGTOW.

(4) I'd like a source on the claim that it's a "know[n] propaganda technique", but this is irrelevant anyway—it's a comment made by a reliable source.

(5) I'm not sure what you mean by "equal province" but again this is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Homeopathists and scientists are "at odds with each other" but homeopathy still has lots of "name calling" in its lead because the scientific consensus is what's reliable. Here, an internet community is not a reliable source, but the SPLC is.

— Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 02:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the lede section should summarize major sections of the article. The "Reception" section is obviously one such section.

Digesting what is in the section, I get:

1) The Economist: "21st-century misogyny"

2) huffingtonpost.com: "indiscriminate hate towards women"

3) Southern Poverty Law Center: male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community"

4) vice.com: Pick-up artists vs. MGTOW

5) W. Bradford Wilcox vs. "Turd Flinging Monkey"

6) University of Western Ontario: MGTOW is "misinformed", "blame on feminists", "disillusioned, disenfranchised men", "deplorable" rhetoric, "distorted perceptions...life of isolation and a lot of limitations."

4 and 5 are, IMO, individual conflict items which cannot be summarized. 6 seems to be breaking down the why rather than describing the what.

This leaves 1-3. Call it misogyny, hate towards women and male supremacy. Misogyny is hatred of women. Hatred of women is hatred of women. SPLC's "male supremacy"? Well, they say male supremacy "is virulent, at times violent misogyny". Again, it's hatred of women.

The section repeatedly states, from a variety of sources that MGTOW is a group that hates women. Should we simply quote SPLC? Probably not. Were the section not contested, I'd summarize it: "MGTOW is a group of male supremacists who hate women" and be done with it. The typical solution to a contested summary is to quote the sources. That means quoting one or all of them. I propose a compromise, a near quoting of all three: "MGTOW is a misogynist male supremacist group".

Is that "negative"? From my POV, yes. So what? That is what the sources say.

(Side point: SPLC and MGTOW are "of equal province"? No, they are not. SPLC is a widely quoted, 50 year old non-profit, with a $400 million endowment. They are regularly quoted by any major news organization you would care to mention and regularly argue before the Supreme Court. SPLC is also a reliable source. MGTOW is none of these thing.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm perfectly happy with your suggestion of instead saying "MGTOW is a misogynist male supremacist group." Perhaps this would work as a second sentence in the first paragraph. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:14, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten this. I'm just giving it a few days for any discussion before making the change. (In the meantime, I'm meditating on the idea that people using the names "W. Bradford Wilcox" and "Turd Flinging Monkey" might have differing world views.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

HiTechHiTouch seems to have disappeared. As there have been no other comments, I am implementing my suggestion. - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:55, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Repeated discussion here of personal opinions is neither constructive nor acceptable. This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not general discussion of the article's topic. Comments of the "I believe MGTOW is X" or "MGTOW should not be labeled Y" are your opinions of the topic. Discussion of improvements to the article would be "Source M is not a WP:IRS because..." or "The source we give for (statement) does not support that. To better reflect the source, it should read (improved statement)" or "I have found another reliable source to add. (Source M) says...". Violations of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines will result in escalating warnings leading to user/IP blocks and/or edit protection as needed. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:34, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that the SPLC cite is fine (we use comparable ones on many other articles), but that if it's a problem we can also just summarize the views from the body in the lead. Also, what's the purpose of the W. Bradford Wilcox vs. "Turd Flinging Monkey" bit? It doesn't actually detail any criticism by Wilcox; it goes into Turd Flinging Monkey's views, but... I don't think Turd Flinging Monkey is someone worth devoting a paragraph to, unless there's more coverage of him elsewhere? Basically I'm not sure what that paragraph was trying to convey. It's not a reception, and if it's meant to represent the views of the MGTOW community we'd need a source saying so rather than just citing Wilcox making fun of him (although we didn't actually include Wilcox's response, despite it being in the reception section and using Wilcox as the source?) --Aquillion (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The problem was that SPLC Does not list MGTOW as a hate group. The link was posted and showed us SPLC spoke about MRA hate groups, but they did not list MGTOW specifically as a hate group, yet the content of the edit said they did. So, the source did not say what you claimed it said. NathanHollister (talk) 04:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The source is clearly relevant to the article, saying: On the borders of the hateful incel community, a community advocating for male separatism has also emerged: calling themselves MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way ... and There are different paths and constituencies in male supremacist movements [...] [including] men going their own way (MGTOW). Don't remove it against existing consensus above. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

As discussed above, SPLC is a reliable source. They call MGTOW a male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community".

As discussed above, the lead section should summarized sourced content in the body of the article, typically without directly citing the sources (which are in the body itself).

As discussed above, SPLC description is part of the section in which several groups say, in summary, that MGTOW is "a misogynist male supremacist group". That summary was discussed and became the consensus here. Conversation was exhausted and the change made. Then, apparently, the call went out and the battle began anew. The status quo was the summary statement. I am returning that statement until such time as a new consensus is found. (Whether or not to include "Turd Flinging Monkey" is a separate question.) - SummerPhD^v2.0 11:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Read their list of hate groups. MGTOW is not listed. Their posting about "hateful incels" is an opinion. They do not list them as a hate group. The majority of people can pretend anything they want, it does not make it accurate. The posting says "SPLC lists MGTOW as a misogynist hate group". Their list of male supremacist hate groups only shows ROK and voice for men. The opinion of one writer or one person they interviewed is not the same as a policy listed by SPLC. NathanHollister (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The material you are edit warring to remove, "MGTOW is a misogynist male supremacist group", does not say MGTOW is a "hate group". That SPLC does not "list them as a hate group" is irrelevant.

Yes, the reliable sources' opinions are the opinions of reliable sources. That they are opinions is irrelevant.

What you believe is inaccurate or the belief of the majority of people is irrelevant. The opinions of reliable sources are relevant and verifiable.

As described above, the text you have repeatedly removed is a summary of the statements presented:

1) The Economist: "21st-century misogyny"

2) huffingtonpost.com: "indiscriminate hate towards women"

3) Southern Poverty Law Center: male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community"

"Call it misogyny, hate towards women and male supremacy. Misogyny is hatred of women. Hatred of women is hatred of women. SPLC's 'male supremacy'? Well, they say male supremacy 'is virulent, at times violent misogyny'. Again, it's hatred of women." - SummerPhD^v2.0 15:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Nathan has opened a dispute resolution thread so we have to jump through the hoops there. He didn't notify anyone, so I guess I will: User:Bilorv and User:SummerPhDv2.0: the thread is here.--Jorm (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I have commented there. As another long-dormant account, Jtcampbell baseball, has resurfaced to remove the statement, I pinged them in the discussion there as well. If anyone feels like looking for any off-wiki canvasing, have at it. I'm working on the odor of socks at the moment. - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0 Jorm Both threads have been closed it seems, I do have some thought on this though. I am not going to edit the page though as I don't want to end up geting caught up in the edit war, I am simply going to say what I have found. The SPLC site says a few different things about this subject.

On the borders of the hateful incel community, a community advocating for male separatism has also emerged: calling themselves MGTOW, Men Going Their Own Way, these men decided to withdraw themselves from the toxicity of women increasingly, eventually “going monk” by abstaining from sex altogether. Decried by Roosh as “passive and meek,” they also deem women inferior and harmful and think they get in the way of male achievement.

That is one of the quotes from the SPLC page. That doesn't say that that they are a supremacy group, they are not listed here either (chose "Male Supremacy" from the drop down). But then there is this.

The National Coalition for Men protested that undocumented people could use the Violence Against Women Act to stay in the U.S. In male supremacist subreddits, whether /TheRedPill, /incels, /MGTOW or others, xenophobic rhetoric abounds.

This is from the same page that the first quote I provied is from. So, they are calling r/MGTOW, a Male, supremacist subreddit. What I think the issues is here, what is the definition of Supremacy in this case. Just my 2 cents though. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 16:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there is a MGTOW subreddit. MGTOW, however, is not a subreddit. Similarly, if there is a Wikipedia subreddit, Wikipedia is not a subreddit. What they say about the subreddit may or may not be what they would say about the community.

What DO they say about the community? In the source cited in the article, they say "There are different paths and constituencies in male supremacist movements: [other examples]; and men going their own way (MGTOW), who present themselves as male separatists." They also say MGTOW is "On the borders of the hateful incel community, a community advocating for male separatism" I boiled that down to "male supremacist group" and "advocating for male separatism". I summarized that along with "21st-century misogyny" (The Economist) and "indiscriminate hate towards women" (huffingtonpost.com) this way "Call it misogyny, hate towards women and male supremacy. Misogyny is hatred of women. Hatred of women is hatred of women. SPLC's 'male supremacy'? Well, they say male supremacy 'is virulent, at times violent misogyny'. Again, it's hatred of women." I arrived at a summary of ""MGTOW is a misogynist male supremacist group".

You are correct that SPLC does not include this online community on their map of hate groups. Though the call to arms to get people editing here apparently states we incorrectly state SPLC calls them a "hate group" and points to the absence here, this is completely irrelevant. We are not saying SPLC calls them a hate group. Additionally, it is not at all surprising that a map does not show the location of a decentralized online community. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0, yep, and that is what I am bringing up. that is where the problem lays. I think we should put all of the sources you listed as cites in the lead, that might help clear up the confusen people have, or a code comment. then again, condering what happned here, people don't seem to pay attention. LakesideMiners^{My Talk Page} 17:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that we cite the three sources of that summary. "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." This is certainly controversial (at least to the MGTOW members). I'll boldly add the cites. If there is any challenge to that, we can discuss it. If not, we're done. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvasing

Given that much of MGTOW exists on Reddit, the new accounts and IPs appearing here are obviously coming from two threads there discussing this very sentence, one from NathanHollister and another using a name that hasn't shown up here yet. As most of their edits are based solely on the threads there, most of the arguments are based entirely on the two editor's primary arguments.

At this point, a FAQ to simplify responding may be in order. The only one that comes immediately to mind is "Why does the article say X? I think it should say Y." with a brief explanation of WP:V and WP:NOR. Thoughts? - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There's no point engaging with these people unless they present sources, coherent arguments or a good faith attempt to understand the pillars of Wikipedia. All the FAQs in the world won't stop any of them. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 11:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

My aim is not to engage or convince them. They have quite an echo chamber going there and no, there is little chance of convincing them. Instead, it's a way to quickly and easily respond to the same repeated question from multiple flybys. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record, here's the reddit thread... [3] and [4]. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Wow. "Criminals at Wikipedia...". That's some fun hyperbole. I've been a criminal before, but not at Wikipedia. This is new!--Jorm (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

(Wait that's not true, strictly speaking, as there was a legal kerfluffle in India at a conference I was at over us hosting specific maps of Kashmir, so I guess I may be a Wikipedia criminal there.)--Jorm (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2019

Remove the opiniated things on this. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased? Godlovesme98 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - Nothing actionable. --Jorm (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done - Statements are not supported by sources.

And again,  Not done. I have reverted this change.--Jorm (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Techpriest Enginseer has created a MGTOW manifesto which can be viewed here:

[redacted] Asstone (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There's nothing actionable here. I've also redacted the URL because we don't need to link to misogynist propaganda.--Jorm (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2019

Remove reference to misogyny Prateekp7 (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. You have provided no rationale for this change.--Jorm (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Prateekp7 is correct. The cited sources do not prove that MGTOW is misogynistic or that it's a male supremacy group. Calling it that grossly and blatantly compromises Wikipedia's objectivity. In fact, that sentence is vandalization of the article. The advocates of this vandilization must prove that misogyny is inherent in the MGTOW philosophy. They have not done that. They have only offered opinions, and unsubstantiated ones at that.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomzc (talk • contribs) 17:36, May 12, 2019 (UTC)

There is no need to "prove" material is true. Wikipedia articles state that HIV causes AIDS, the Earth is spherical and NASA astronauts walked on the Moon. You are still free to argue that the Earth is flat, the Moon landings faked, etc., but the consensus of independent reliable sources determines what Wikipedia says.

Independent reliable sources support that MGTOW is classified as a misogynistic male supremacist group. If independent reliable sources said MGTOW is a service group dedicated to helping old ladies across the street and maintaining community parks, we would say that.

If you are aware of independent reliable sources with more to say on MGTOW, feel free to add them. From what little I've seen, it's obvious the sources are giving a very broad description and there is much more to be said. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

On SPLC

Following the contribution of an unregistered user (here), I decided (here) to rewrite the SPLC's labeling to better reflect the organization's indictment of MGTOW, to reposition a repeated portion and to offer the appropriate citation. Welcome comments/questions. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 05:06, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

A primary sourrce doesn't establish the notability of this assertion. We require a high-quality secondary source to do that. I deon't object to the statement if it is proven notable, SPLC publishing doesn't indicate notability so have removed until a sercondary source is forthcoming. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 14:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't affect our ability to use it. Newspapers are primary sources. This has been discussed before at WP:RSN. Doug Weller talk 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)c

Yes it does because notability hasn't been established. Newspapers are only primary sources talking about themselves and their journalists. The LA Times talking about the LA Times is a primary source. SPLC talking about their opinions about MGTOW is the same. A secondary source would be the LA Times talking about SPLCs opinions on MGTOW. You seem to be claiming that anything SPLC says is notable. What we need are secondary sources to establish that SPLCs assertions are notable. Your link isn't much help,can you be more specific? It confirms we see SPLC as an advocacy group and doesn't back-up your assertion than when dealing with SPLC secondary sources aren't required, let alone in the policy itself. Many secondary sources mention SPLC and this is required here due to notability issues. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That is the same error you made at Talk:Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ#Primary sources. See the explanations there. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

SPLC does not list MGTOW as a hate group. You have no right to claim that they do. NathanHollister (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

We do not claim SPLC lists them as a hate group. (Note, however, that not placing an online group on a map of hate groups does not say they are not a hate group.) We say "MGTOW is a misogynist male supremacist group". This is a summary of "21st-century misogyny", "indiscriminate hate towards women" and "male supremacist group...on the borders of the hateful incel community". - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Zeta male

Adding the following, which has sources including a Sagepub Men and Masculinities Journal article giving overview of the Zeta male concept.

Zeta male refers to a perspective and way of being male that positions itself outside of the usual hierarchical model of masculinity based on Alpha male (top), Beta male (second) and Omega male (lowest). Unlike the foregoing, the Zeta Male's orientation is not based on a hierarchical classification of men. The concepts 'Zeta male' and ' Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW)' are often compared on the basis that they both promote male self-determination, however they differ in their promotion of social withdrawal (MGTOW) vs promotion of social engagement (Zeta male), and also in regard to the value of male hierarchical categories of Alpha, Beta and Omega which Zeta philosophy explicitly rejects. Zeta males and MGTOW champion non-gynocentric masculinities and male self-determination, however MGTOW has become associated with a rejection of intimate relationships with women (including marriage), and a permanent retreat and disengagement from society and its expectations on men. Critics of the MGTOW tendency to disengagement claim it promotes a higher potential for isolation, nihilism, depression and suicide. Founder of the Zeta male concept Paul Elam qualifies it in the following way:

"I've seen many people in the last decade read it (Zeta) as meaning detachment and indifference. And all along it was just the opposite.

Unlike MGTOW, the Zeta male concept is not based on social withdrawal, nor on the status of being married or not married, or on being in a relationship with women, and is based solely on the refusal to self-identify with the Alpha, Beta and Omega male categories, including a man's willingness to engage with the world based on that premise.

Milasahs (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources

My first thoughts are the following: We can never use urbandictionary as a source, and the townhall.com blog is an opinion piece, and thus cannot be used either. The Slate article is valid. I'm not sure about pulse.ng, I'm not familiar with them. The blockquote has absolutely got to go. I can't get access to the sagepub sources, though I'm leery about the idea that two of those sources are written by the same person.

This is definitely way out of "due weight", I think. I think at best a single paragraph may work, but I'm not sure where it should go.--Jorm (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia rules, so am happy for whatever editing and reduction of the material to happen per Wikipedia requirements. The information I gave is representative of the consensus on the similarities and differences between MGTOW and Zeta male, however I'm sure that it can be condensed in whatever way more experienced hands see fit. Milasahs (talk) 06:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

There is only one third party source here and that only uses the terms as a throw away. Inadequately soured for inclusion as far as I can see -----Snowded ^TALK 06:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The pulse.ng source cites Urban Dictionary and the antifeminist blog A Voice For Men, but otherwise offers no backup or context for dividing men into different "types". Ditto for the bold claim that "Medusa happens to be the symbol for feminism". (Take that, Rosie!) Their "About Us" page gives no indication of any editorial staff; this looks essentially like just another blog. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Ging (2017) attributes the Zeta male concept solely to Elam (the AVFM founder). Neither Ging nor Grose (2010) compare Zeta males to MGTOW at all (in fact, Grose doesn't even mention Zeta males). So we can't imply any such comparison based on these sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:40, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like there are no mentions in the article for this, so really we're just achieving consensus not to include information about "zeta males" unless reliable sources describe it in the future.--Jorm (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Just dotting the i's and crossing the t's, as it were. Also want to point out that Andy Thomas is a blogger on AVFM (https://www.avoiceformen.com/author/andyman/), so the articles by him are likewise unusable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC) (edited 10:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2019

Remove "This community is a misogynist male supremacist group". This is not true, and is not supported by any sources. If this line continues to be here, then it would direct more haters towards our way of life. Please remove this.

I have more reasons if you choose to want to hear them.

Thank you. Oofta (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done You have provided no rationale for this change.--Jorm (talk) 23:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

He did provide a rationale - the statement is not supported by any sources. I have done this and removed it. Do not add this statement back without a source that *actually* says this. Galestar (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done Statements are not supported by sources and do not belong here. Galestar (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

National Organization for Women is also a female supremacist group, if MGTOW is a male supremacist group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.128.50 (talk • contribs) 19:34, May 7, 2019 (UTC)

@Jorm: Get consensus before adding these statements to the article. Galestar (talk) 22:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Jorm re-added them, again, without consensus. Galestar (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Please present a reliable secondary source if you want something to be changed. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 00:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2019

Please change "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is a mostly online community[3][4] of men supported by websites and social media presences[5] cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage and cohabitation." to "MGTOW - Men Going Their Own Way - is a statement of self-ownership, where the modern man preserves and protects his own sovereignty above all else. It is the manifestation of one word: "No". Ejecting silly preconceptions and cultural definitions of what a man is. Looking to no one else for social cues. Refusing to bow, serve and kneel for the opportunity to be treated like a disposable utility. And, living according to his own best interests in a world which would rather he didn't." as it is stated on the website "https://www.mgtow.com". Ckhera7 (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done - We describe subjects in-line with what reliable independent secondary sources say about them, rather than what they say about themselves. --GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I support the edit request, because a news site is not a reliable, objective source, and also the statemet is a lie. MGTOW reject marriage (and cohabitation only on places where it produces legal effects similar to marriage). MGTOW don't reject "romantic relationships". It is also a falsehood that MGTOW "vowed to stay away from women, stop dating". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.82.54.0 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on independent reliable sources. If you feel that a particular source does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:IRS you will need to explain what criteria it misses. Otherwise, the information is verifiable. - SummerPhD^v2.0 20:10, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

You should actually read WP:IRS. These sources are editorials and fall under this:

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Galestar (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Recent Galestar edits

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.

---

Galestar removed the stable, consensus version that MGTOW "is classified as a misogynistic male supremacist group." That's a bold edit (and then some).

As they disputed the change (and it is the consensus) Jorm restored the material. That's a revert.

Per WP:BRD, the next step is to discuss the proposed change, not make the change again and demand that the consensus be re-determined before restoring the consensus version.

As discussed above -- repeatedly -- "misogynistic male supremacist group" summarizes what the independent reliable sources say about MGTOW. Yes, we know the group doesn't say that about itself. Primary sources are like that. White supremecists, neo-fascists, neo-Nazis, megalomaniacal dictators etc. are always -- in their own reports -- trying to get all the children of the world together to join hands and sing songs of love, peace and harmony.

The independent reliable sources say: 1) The Economist: "21st-century misogyny" 2) huffingtonpost.com: "indiscriminate hate towards women" 3) Southern Poverty Law Center: male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community"

Whatever members of MGTOW think the group is, this is what independent reliable sources have to say that MGTOW verifiably is, a misogynistic male supremacist group. - SummerPhD^v2.0 01:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1) There was no consensus on this.

2) The sources do not back-up the claim. They do NOT actually say that MGTOW is "a misogynistic male supremacist group". SPLC sayin "on the borders of the hateful incel community" is not equivalent to them saying that they are "a misogynistic male supremacist group". It is not up to you to reinterpret that. Statements can be removed until a reliable source ACTUALLY says that.

3) The sources are editorials and cannot be used as statements of fact under WP:IRS

Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact.

Galestar (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

That's a lot of things to throw at the wall to see what sticks.

1) There was a consensus. The question was raised on 26 April 2019 by HiTechHiTouch, an account which had been silent for a year and a half before coming here in force as, essentially, a WP:SPA. They then disappeared. The discussing was open but essentially silent until 5 May 2019 when I made the change. Then the off-wiki canvassing at Reddit brought on the chorus of long-silent accounts and IPs aping claims by NathanHollister on Reddit, with plenty of cheerleading until his current block. Now you are here. In the past year and a half, you've had one dust up at Sarah Jeong (she of "Gamergate" fame) and now here. Yes, there was a consensus.

2) The sources do not say "misogynistic male supremacist group" verbatim. That is a MOS:LEAD summary of the "Reception" section. Originally, the statement did not directly state the sources, per WP:LEADCITE, as discussed on this talk page. When it became clear that the Reddit claims to it being unsupported were not going to respond to comments on the talk page, we added the cites. As repeatedly discussed, and first explained here, this is a clear summary of the sources cited.

3) There is absolutely no indication that the sources are editorials. One notable feature of The Economist is that most articles do not carry bylines, in an effort to emphasize the collective nature of its content. The exceptions are op-eds (which are signed) and departing editors signing their final articles. The one we cite is unsigned. Huffingtonpost runs the closest thing it has to editorials in their "Perspectives" section under "Personal" or "Opinion". The article we cite is in neither of those. To the best of my knowledge, SPLC does not run "editorials" or "op-ed" pieces. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1) You didn't actually reach consensus, you've just been bullying and edit-warring this article into making it look like you got consensus. My account's history is not relevant - additionally you have misrepresented my edit history. Your frequency of edits across the wiki does not give you license to ignore the rules.

2) Since it doesn't say what the page is saying it does, the statement must be reworded or removed. Reinterpreting the source is WP:OR. Many other editors responded to you, you just responded louder and more frequently. That does not mean you "win" and get to declare consensus.

3) Can you demonstrate that they are not editorials? HP runs many other editorials and opinion pieces that they do not explicitly call out as such. These sources seem to reflect the author's opinion on the matter, not a statement of objective fact. As such WP should not attempt to reframe their opinions as objective fact. Galestar (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1) The question was raised and discussed. There was no reply when I suggested the current wording. The original editor disappeared and the two remaining editors agreed. Then there was absolute silence. That is a consensus. I have not edit warred by any stretch of the imagination. You repeated insistence that restoring the material you removed without discussion, OTOH, was problematic and potentially a violation of the administrative ruling in effect on this article. Your edit history seems to indicate that you arrived here in the same way as numerous other dormant accounts -- in response to NathanHollister's call on Reddit for meatpuppets to attack this very phrase. Here's a summary of your edit history: You've had several problems with gender-related controversies. A more detailed summary is here. If you feel my editing is "bullying" or "edit warring", you will likely want to open a discussion at WP:AN/I.

2) It is a valid summary of the section. It is not OR in that it does not "reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." The sources say MGTOW is "21st-century misogyny", "indiscriminate hate towards women", male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community".

"Misogyny" is hatred of women, indiscriminate hate toward women" is hatred of women, per the source saying it "male supremacism includes hatred of women. Thus "misogynistic male supremacist group". The "Reception" section is roughly 25% of the article and therefore should certainly be summarized in the MOS:LEAD. What do you feel is a more accurate summary of the section?

3) You are misunderstanding what an "editorial" is. It is "an article written by the senior editorial staff or publisher of a newspaper, magazine, or any other written document...typically published on a dedicated page, called the editorial page". None of the sources cited meet that description. None of the sources cited match their publications own callouts for editorials. No one can prove a negative. You say they are editorials; the burden to demonstrate that is on you. - SummerPhD^v2.0 06:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources clearly establish them as misogynist and supremacist but we could do with some academic articles to make it a firm classification. I'd suggest 'considered' rather than 'classified' which would be more approritate to the source. Oh and edit history is relevant, especially if we have meat farms in operation -----Snowded ^TALK 06:57, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Since they have not actually "classified" them as these things, "considered" is definitely better. Galestar (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

1) Look at the history of this article, you've been edit warring to force your fake consensus. I have never visited the Reddit in question, please stop making accusations and personal attacks you can't back up.

2) It is not in any way a valid summary of the article. Once again please stop with the WP:OR

3) The burden is on you to prove that they are WP:RS Galestar (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

• I've removed the tags; there's never a valid reason to add four tags to a single sourced sentence and two to another. We can discuss rewording it but it's clearly what reliable sources are saying about the subject. The editor is edit warring against consensus which we've established on this talk page, and we need a new consensus on this talk page before any changes are made. I don't have much time to participate in discussion right now but I fully agree with everything SummerPhDv2.0 has said in this section above. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 09:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The sources do not such thing. Even if the did, these should be attributed statements and not in the lede. The tags are accurate, do not remove them. Galestar (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Also adding

4) These should be attributed statements

5) It should not be in the lede

Yes I'm "throwing a lot at the wall to see what sticks" because the current state of the article is so bad. You have a lot of problems with the statements as they stand its amazing you can defend them. Not sourced, not attributed, inflammatory statements directly in the lede? Terrible, terrible editing. Galestar (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Your tone is unconstructive and your behaviour disruptive, regardless of whether you are correct. Continue with this and there is no way that you will garner a consensus for your changes.

As for the sentences you dispute, note that the SPLC source says There are different paths and constituencies in male supremacist movements [...] [including] men going their own way (MGTOW), which justifies the article's claim: "the Southern Poverty Law Center has identified the community as a male supremacist group". Our article also claims "The community is classified as a misogynistic male supremacist group", for which the SPLC source covers the description "male supremacist group" and the word "misogynistic" is covered by The Economist source (The rebalancing of the sexes has spawned 21st-century misogyny is the subtitle to their article about MGTOW); the HuffPost source backs up these source's descriptions of the movement. You can propose new wording if you wish, and we can discuss that, but your tags are factually inaccurate. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 15:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

You are merely restating your claims, but not answering direct questions.

The "Reception" is a significant piece of the article and, per MOS:LEAD should be summarized in the lead. You do not like the summary and want to remove it. You have neither explained why 25% of the article should not be summarized per our Manual of Style nor provided what you feel is a more accurate summary.

You have repeatedly accused me of edit warring, bullying and now libel. As I see nothing productive coming from these accusations, I request that you stop discussing my editing and restrict your comments to the content. If you have any remaining or continuing concerns regarding my editing, please take them directly to WP:AI/V. - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Editting this page: First off I need to apologize for editing this page. I shouldn't have done that.

Re: Commenting about edit history rather than content: I find it odd that you are now asking me to do that after you did an in-depth (but ultimately mischaracterized) investigation into my edit history. However, I agree - we should be discussing the content not each others' respective edit histories. If you can agree to do that, so can I.

Re: Answering direct questions. Was there an actual *question* somewhere that I missed?

Re: Actual content:

To say that "Organization [X] *classified* organization [Y] as a male supremacist group" is a statement of claim that organization X actually performed that classification. Classifying something is an explicit action that that org must take, and they haven't made that classification in this case. Especially when it comes to SPLC since one of their core functions is to classify organizations as hate groups. You can find the list of groups they have classified as such here: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/groups. MGTOW is not listed. Point is that this statement is very bold and incendiary and if you're going to make it you better be sure that it is actually true. Galestar (talk) 03:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Re: Consensus: Refer to WP:SILENCE. While there's much more to this policy, important to highlight this portion.

Of course, it is impractical to wait forever for affirmation: in the meantime then, sometimes it is best to assume that silence implies consensus. You can continue to hold that assumption (hopefully safely) until someone comes along and changes the page by editing or reverting. The more visible the statement, and the longer it stands unchallenged, the stronger the implication of consensus is.

You only had an implied, weak consensus. The continued edits and challenges less than a month later is clear grounds that your implied consensus was not real. Galestar (talk) 04:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

What planet do you live on that this makes logical sense? We actually have a very strong consensus, and this is shown by how well it is supported and managed. The repeated "challenges" are nothing more than lots of other folk who have axes to grind, shown because they never have any kind of sourcing. --Jorm (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Please keep your comments WP:CIVIL. I don't know what to do with you second statement these since you're asking for sources for a statement that you want included but isn't actually supported by the sources? You want someone asking to fix that to provide a source for your statement? See WP:BURDEN. Galestar (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about that, you are pretty clearly not listening -----Snowded ^TALK 16:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

You can honestly say that "What planet do you live on that this makes logical sense?" isn't uncivil? Galestar (talk) 04:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, unless you are very sensitive soul in which case controversial wikipedia articles are not the place to spend your time.-----Snowded ^TALK 07:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Bringing up two points: A) Going to go back to the SPLC description of MGTOW, specifically the "on the borders of the hateful incel community" part. This should be changed to "The SPLC has described MGTOW as "a community advocating for male separatism."" This is more correctly in line with what the SPLC was saying in that sentence. In truth, the sentence concerning the SPLC could just be dropped. The sentence that both quotes above came from is one of two real mentions by the SPLC about MGTOW in their male supremacy page, and one of four times(one of these four being a picture in a article about an assault) that MGTOW is seen on their ENTIRE website. The SPLC gives NO mention of WHY they describe MGTOW as male supremacists other than this line "they also deem women inferior and harmful and think they get in the way of male achievement" and as to why they say that, there is nothing. B) I am sorry Summer, but since WHEN has the Huffington Post been a reliable source? It is NOT by the Verifiability guidelines. For starters it has to be a "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." It also has to follow this guideline "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." If the article from which ALL of it was taken didn't fail COMPLETELY at any of this, it gets WORSE. The article is NOT talking about MGTOW but a specific person's views. Here is the link and the ACTUAL line. "The founder, known as Sandman, sits safely behind his computer screen and proclaims his bitter, indiscriminate hate towards women, according to his videos I've watched." . One last thing. Someone needs to check the Economist's article. It requires a subscription that I don't have, and at this point, seems necessary to ensure that the Economist is actually A) a verifiable source article not an opinion piece, and B) actually saying that it IS misogynistic. I have yet to fact check ANY of the rest of this, as I was mainly concerned about the fact that Huffington Post was used as a source, but if it is the same, we may have to rewrite this whole page. AngryTails (talk) 01:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources

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.