Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 13

Mysogynist male supremacist
In the lead, the sentence "The community is classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a misogynistic male supremacist group.  " cites three sources, but only the Southern Poverty Law Center source gives a classification of "mysogynist male supremacist" for the movement. The the Economist and Huffington Post sources do use this terminology. –Zfish118⋉talk 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that neither huffington nor the economist actually make that classification, and I'm very happy to see an actual attribution there (rather than just a general "they are classified"). However the SPLC also does not "classify" MGTOW as such.  Galestar (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Also note WP:Verifiability, and the use of "directly".

"any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material."


 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 02:30, June 3, 2019 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:LEAD, the lead paragraph should provide "a summary of its most important contents". As the "Reception" section is roughly 25% of the article, we should be summarizing the section, rather than summarizing SPLC's statement (which is what we are currently doing). As repeatedly explained, I left out two bits ("pick-up artists" vs. MGTOW and an individual dispute with someone call "Turd Monkey" or some such) and pulled out the salient points of each. I propose the following:
 * The community has been called a misogynistic  male supremacist group.
 * This leaves the current statement as is but broadens the sourcing to more accurately reflect that this is a summary of the section ("21st-century misogyny", "indiscriminate hate towards women", male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community"), rather than simply SPLC's statement. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:30, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What about "described as" instead of "called"? --JBL (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO both "described as" and "considered" are both better than "classifed", with "described as" being the most accurate. This is probably the best way forward.  I'm wondering if attribution should be added inline or if that would become too verbose for the lede? Galestar (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "Classified" is fine, because that's what they did: they classified them as a hate group. Quibbling over the language doesn't change that fact. --Jorm (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * They didn't actually "classify" them as that. Continually asserting that they did without showing in the sources where they did isn't helping or convincing.  Galestar (talk) 03:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there some secret "classification" process I don't know about? Describing MGTOW as misogynist and/or male supremacist is enough to "classify" it as such. It's a more formal term that means the same thing as "described", "considered", etc.. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a different and more formal action than simply saying bad things about them hence why "described as" is accurate and "classified as" is not. There is a classification process but its not secret - it is actually one of SPLC's core activities.  Here's are a couple of ways to view that list on the SPLC website page 43+.  We actually have a whole article on this:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galestar (talk • contribs) 14:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Weirdly I actually agree with Galestar about this: "classified" suggests that there is someone engaged in a process of classification, but that doesn't seem to be exactly right here (at least based on the sources under discussion). --JBL (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Then how about we say MGTOW "has been identified by" the SPLC as misogynist and male supremacist, to match the language used under ? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with that or 'considered'-Snowded TALK 06:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * On reflection, I think 's suggested wording is the best option so far. (I'm a bit leery of giving this HuffPost blog the same weight as SPLC and The Economist, but in any case the lead should just summarize what's in the article.) Per WP:WEASEL, phrasing such as "has been called" is appropriate for the lead if attribution is given in the body, which it is. I'm going to be bold and implement that version; feel free to adjust the wording and/or sourcing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is good. I'd prefer "called" or "described as" in the Reception section as well (as opposed to "identified as") but at least it isn't "classified as" which was my primary concern.  Galestar (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This is NOT good unfortunately. Huffington Post is NOT a valid source for this article as their "classification" is not about MGTOW but a specific PERSON'S(specifically someone they call Sandman) view. I have provided a link above since I believed that Galestars edits concerning the SPLC and Summer's consequent mention of HuffPost was warranted. Link is above as a reference. Sorry if I made your life a bit harder Sangdeboeuf. AngryTails (talk) 01:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources July 2019
Please remove sources 4-8,10,13,15-21. The reasons vary with several barely mentioning MGTOW as a movement in the first place, and some are just redundant. By source: 4) Per Source 11: "The media has tended to cover MGTOW by mocking them. For example, VICE’s profile last year, entitled “This Group of Straight Men Is Swearing Off Women,” featured a photo of a fat guy in a homemade MGTOW superhero costume, protesting outside a feminist conference, carrying a placard reading “FEMINISM IS A REFUGE FOR WOMAN’S SEXUAL FAILURE.” The ENTIRE thing mocks the movement and the worst part about it, is it forms the basis for MOST of substance of this page. 5) "While there are variations in their foci, antifeminist men's groups and Internet forums, identifiable by acronyms such as MGTOW,2 PUA,3 FR4 and #Gamergate, are united by complaints that feminism is the source of men`s personal and professional problems and a threat to civilisation." only reference to MGTOW in the entire paper(personalities introduction) 6) One small paragraph talking about MGTOW, on page 93(clicking the link takes you to page 91) Both 5 and 6 are redundant and are not needed as sources, their only contributions in the page being to affirm "anti feminist" 7 and 8) Both of these sources are used to describe MGTOW as an online community. It is their only contribution to the page. 10) This source simply didn't make sense. An article about a suicide to say that this group is part of the "manosphere"? 13) Opinion piece. This is a straight up opinion piece. 15) Did we NEED a source to say that the movement, mostly online, is on YouTube? 16) This was weird, since it literally joined MGTOW with the alt-right and libertarians in the idea of fiscal responsibility, which is an idea shared by most everyone living... 17) "I know about the “men going their own way” movement, which is based around the idea that men should avoid any sort of romantic or sexual relationship with women." This was the only mention of MGTOW in the article, and it while the article does talk about the alt-right, it defines the alt-right as "An online subculture centred around hatred, anger and resentment of feminism specifically, and women more broadly" which seems to negate Wiki's own definition of the alt right being white nationalist. That was the only mention of MGTOW in the entire article. 18) This requires a subscription to view the article. However, the free part, doesn't talk about "monk mode" and only barely covers the "cost-benefit analysis" Removal as a source simply because we can't fact check it freely. 19) This mostly takes from Mack Lamoureux's Vice article. In fact, it just reads like a hit piece. Examples: "The words at the top of this post come from (the presumably musty bedroom of) Smitty6," "Charmingly the MGTOW movement is a little bit like a video game" Whether or not this is the correct source(it says archived but when clicked, it doesn't exist) is a bit in doubt for me, but if it is, it is not a proper source. 20) Three paragraphs, basically saying what it is and what it espouses. Redundant. 21) I personally liked this article, however, as a MGTOW source, it is woefully inadequate. Barely mentions MGTOW. About Vice as a source in this instance. That article reads as a hatchet job of an actual informative article, or an opinion piece. God I hope he wrote it as an opinion piece. Examples: "They are fucking terrified of those gosh-darn prevalent false rape accusations." "The two groups differ significantly in how they make sure those tricky, tricky women don't pull any of their devious tactics." "If I were to play armchair psychologist, I thought he just looked sad." "They preach using their lives for "productive pursuits" (work, I guess?) and get companionship from brotherhood."(He didn't do research to figure that out?)"Do yourself a favor and try not to think about it too hard." I didn't even have to go halfway down the page for these. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngryTails (talk • contribs) 03:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Have a nice evening.  Dumuzid (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * +1, I also respectfully disagree. Your objections feel more like WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than specific WP:PAG violations. Britishfinance (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The violation is of WP:NPOV and I agree they should be removed. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:58, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * NPOV doesn't say what you seem to think it says. It says we aim to write "from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." We are fairly, proportionately and without editorial bias reporting that reliable sources say MGTOW is anti-feminist, misogynist, borders on the hateful incel community, etc. We also report that Battlefield Earth is "frequently described as one of the worst films of all time" while The Handmaid's Tale "received critical acclaim". We also objectively report that "Reiki is a pseudoscience", and report on Hitler's "gravely immoral" actions and ideology.
 * If you have significant views from independent reliable sources that say MGTOW is about puppies happily frolicking in fields of daisies, please present them here. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia, AngryTails. Though you may have already seen it, please review the notice I am adding to your new talk page. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with some of that. Especially Vice which is not RS.  Galestar (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the conclusion which the noticeboard reached; more like "use with caution." Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for responding. Please note that for the majority of the sources I am simply asking for their removal as sources and not the wording of the article itself to be changed based off those sources. There are three exceptions. The Vice article and the one written based off the Vice article, are the biggest ones. I marked these as 4 and 19 above, with the reason why. The only other one that would require rewording the article is the "altright" part as the sources do not prove that MGTOW is connected to the alt right based off our own definition of it, and that the second source doesn't mention the altright at all.AngryTails (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ... We're not going to remove any of the sources.--Jorm (talk) 03:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not the supreme dictator here and can just blanket say "We're not going to [do X]". Galestar (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not decide MGTOW is alt-right, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male supremacist, etc. based on anyone's definitions of "alt-right", "misogynist", etc. Wikipedia says MGTOW is alt-right, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male supremacist, etc. because independent reliable sources say MGTOW is alt-right,, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male supremacist, etc. Additionally, independent reliable sources do not have to "prove" that their characterizations are correct to your satisfaction. If the sources all said MGTOW is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "MGTOW is a cheese sandwich", without regard as to whether or not MGTOW is made of bread and cheese or otherwise meets any particular definition of what a cheese sandwich is or provides any "proof". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)−
 * I wouldn't be surprised if there was a Vice article out there somewhere that said "MGTOW is a cheese sandwich". Galestar (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you present it here, we can add the explanation that some sources say that, in addition to the prominent consensus that MGTOW is an alt-right, misogynistic, anti-feminist, male supremacist, etc. on-line group. Until then, we have the sources that we have and what they say is what Wikipedia says. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:56, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you like Vice to say it is made with cheddar or provolone? Galestar (talk) 03:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have other independent reliable sources, feel free to discuss them. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I agree with about some of the above sources, namely the ones that are simply opinion pieces, such as by Wilkinson (2016) and Mehrota (2016). I think the article largely suffers from trying to make too much out of a pretty thinly-sourced topic in general. For instance, MEL Magazine is an "extension of the Unilever-owned Dollar Shave Club". While it has editors and other trappings of professional journalism, I'm skeptical about using an online lifestyle magazine as the sole source for important information such as "MGTOW call for focus on self-ownership", "Politically, MGTOW has been variously associated with ... philosophical anarchism", and the like. While Vice isn't ideal either, the parts of the article cited to it are generally corroborated by other sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

This article relies almost solely on sources that can be easily traced to the "woke" Far Left, who universally put all their political enemies into the realm of racism, sexism and alt-right, to the point these terms lose any coherent meaning. Sorces from Far Left are hardly "independent".Gladifer (talk) 07:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It's helpful if you can make concrete proposals for article improvement. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The claim that the mainstream academic and media sources for this article are "Far Left" is amusingly post-factual. Newimpartial (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that this article seems not to have as a purpose to give us information about what MGTOW is but to paint them in a bad light as its main focus. For example in the first paragraph instead of starting with the core of the topic as the Wikipedia instructs us how to structure the content the authors put the core of the thing last and in between they put stuff not necessarily true. "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from a society they see as harmful to men, and particularly to eschew heterosexual marriage and cohabitation." It can be anti-feminist but that's not the core of the philosophy, same as with the "seperate themselves from society", there can be some advocating monk life but that is not the core of the philosophy. The core of the philosophy is avoid marriage and cohabitation. Then we see it is associated with the alt-right but that's not part of the core of the issue because that is not necessary true either. We see that is called male supremacist group but avoiding relationships is not supremacy of any kind. Please try making an honest representation of the matter and leave your personal politics out of it. Even the Nazism article has a better treatment than MGTOW lol - liberalo  15:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.210.55.91 (talk)
 * The purpose of the article is to document what independent reliable sources say about MGTOW. Whether or not you agree with what independent reliable sources say about MGTOW is immaterial. What individual members of MGTOW say about MGTOW is immaterial. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

SPLC has paid out $3.375 million in libel damages
https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/06/18/splc-statement-regarding-maajid-nawaz-and-quilliam-foundation

The SPLC has a self-admitted history of publishing false information and does not qualify as a reliable source. There is no reason to consider them reliable. Including unreliable sources known to publish false information only cheapens the quality of the article and reflects badly on Wikipedia. All references to unreliable source splc must be removed, per the Wikipedia rules on only using reliable sources.GeniusMasterSeven (talk) 00:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh. That article seems to make the SPLC more reliable than less reliable. I think you did your cause a disservice here.  Regardless, if you want to challenge the SPLC as a reliable source, you don't do it here; you do it at WP:RSN.  --Jorm (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, sources make mistakes. Some may mischaracterize a group. Others may support bizarre conspiracy theories and send child porn to opposing counsel during pre-trial discovery. Neither one of these by itself indicates it is not a "reliable source".


 * If a source meets the criteria outlined at WP:IRS, it is a reliable source. In this article, in the context it is cited for, SPLC is a reliable source. We've discussed this. If you disagree, you will need to raise the issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * If we discounted every reliable source which has had to pay libel charges then for a start, we'd be eliminating every single newspaper that's been around for more than a couple of years. Sources can make occasional mistakes and still be reliable. The SPLC is reliable. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That seems to be one, and only one, example of the SPLC publicly being called out on, and retracting, a statement. Given the length of time the SPLC has been active, and the wide scope and highly contentious nature of their activities, one settlement seems to be quite a low number, and would, as said above, seem to indicate the high general quality of the SPLC's research. Do you have any other examples you could give, or is that the only one? -- The Anome (talk) 08:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * SPLC is listed as a perennial reliable source on Wikipedia. Britishfinance (talk) 18:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

"is an anti-feminist"
Sangdeboeuf added this change: which I reverted as I believe that is not appropriate as the absolute first part of their definition. Jorm then reverted my revert  saying I need consensus. Sangdeboeuf was Bold, I Reverted. The next step is Discuss NOT revert my revert. Adding this text requires consensus, not the other way around. Galestar (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Consensus doesn't mean your having to agree :-) This was is fairly self-evident and the lede has to summarise the article.  -Snowded TALK 07:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm agreed that this is self-evident and relevant to include in the lead. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * STOP putting content in the article that has been challenged without discussing first. While its okay to put an attributed statement in the lead, having that as the very first thing that we say about this group is definitely not NPOV.  Galestar (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In what way does it violate NPOV? Something has to be the first thing we describe the group as and I'm not clear who exactly would object to characterising MGTOW as anti-feminists—certainly, both MGTOW and feminists would agree with the description. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That sounds like some high-quality WP:OR there. Galestar (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)


 * So far, the statements has been added or restored by three editors (I would have been the fourth, has someone else not gotten to it first twice). You alone have removed it.
 * WP is not a popularity contest. All I'm asking for firstly is that edits that are challenged be first discussed not just forced through.  You admitting that you'd be the fourth is only further evidence that you don't actually want to discuss to reach a consensus you're just POV pushing. Galestar (talk)
 * Personally, I'm having trouble finding independent reliable sources that don't identify MGTOW as anti-feminist and/or misogynistic and/or male supremacist and/or hateful. Yes, MGTOW members repeatedly claim is X, Y and Z. Were this an organized group with an official statement, the lead would be a little different -- more inline with various groups and individuals who self-identify as (whatever) "realists" while all the sources simply state they are anti-(whatever) and hate (whatever). If your goal is to continue trying to water that down, you aren't going to find much in Wikipedia's policies to support you; Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say, not what groups and individuals say about themselves. You might have better luck elsewhere. Conservapedia doesn't seem to have a MGTOW article and I know their policies are a little more inline with your apparent desire to describe this alt-right group in a way that better matches their claims. I don't know if Metapedia has an article and don't intend to check, but they'd also likely be a bit more accepting of your approach. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 17:18, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please cease the personal attacks and hyperbole about Conservapedia. Stick to discussing content and policy. Galestar (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I see no personal attack. The article you seem to want here isn't going to happen here. I suggested other projects that might accept it. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Additionally this source has yet to be demonstrated as WP:RS.  Galestar (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * As that is not in any way related to the "anti-feminist" statement being discussed here, if you would like to challenge that source and/or material it is cited for, please start a new topic. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 22:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That's the source that is cited for the statement that was added Galestar (talk) 15:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistake, I was looking at the bare ref used for it elsewhere. I've consolidated. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:57, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Enough - you have no support from other editors, your accusation of a personal attack above is nonsense. Unless you have new evidence I can't see the point of carrying on with this -Snowded TALK 16:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverting; I concur with Galestar. The advocating of male-separatism and abstinence from sex with woman cannot be confused as being anti-feminist, as it does nothing to counter the intended effect of the feminist movement or to otherwise impede woman's rights. Given that two editors have now reverted the edit, it is at best a contentious addition, that would require further discussion or mediation prior to addition to the article.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your reversion. Two people - you and Galestar, a known tendentious editor in this topic space - are insufficient to override sourced material.  Consensus is clearly against you.  Provide alternative sources if you wish to see a change.--Jorm (talk) 15:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Happy to provide alternative sources. Not only does the community itself fail to mention Feminism at all in its menifesto, but the fact that the article has existed for several years without the community being described as inherently anti-feminist seems to support the common sense conclusion that if such were true, it would have been called out long before now.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 16:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Let's see those sources, then! But we warned: I am extremely unlikely to take anyone seriously who uses the word "menifesto".  Regarding "it would have been called out before":  that's not how logic works!  I'm reverting you again; if you revert me you'll be at 3rr.  Until you have consensus for its removal, it will remain.--Jorm (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest you read the 3RR rule my pedigree chum. You've reverted the exact same edit by multiple editors three times now, I'm skeptical as to whether an Administrator would view your conduct favorably given the low rate of change on the article.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You stopped, didn't you?--Jorm (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For now *Muwah*  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Promethean (or someone claiming to be that user) has approached me off-wiki (on IRC). I told them I would not discuss it there (this is a weirdly common thing, randos emailing me or finding me on irc).  Just leaving a note for others they may attempt to contact.--Jorm (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Quite happy to claim ownership of that approach; Wanted to discuss the edit warring in question to see if there were an amicable resolution / compromise in terms of wording. Unfortunately Jorm was profoundly uncooperative in my attempts to collaborate on or discuss the issue. Even my attempts to discuss matters unrelated to the edit-war in question (Such as his preference of Coke or Pepsi) were ignored. I can't say this constitutes editing in good faith, but, I guess one can only expect that from an Ex-WMF employee.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 17:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Contacting other editors off wiki really isn't very transparent and Jorm did the right thing in rejecting it. I'm in support of their position on this matter. -Snowded TALK 18:01, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Jorm is more than capable for advocating for his position; I figured Freenode IRC was a more effective means to get through the back and forth of understanding each other rather than edit warring constantly or trying to engage constructively on a talk page, which he has so far failed to do. My opinion is nothing if not a valid line of thought, given the available evidence.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * In an endeavour to get a genuine resolution to the dispute, I've listed this discussion at WP:Third Opinion. My concern is that the source for the statement that MGTOW is anti-feminist is at best dubious. Perusing the results of Google show make it readily apparent that the writer is a highly-active feminist campaigner with questionable motives and BIAS. Further, the article makes sweeping statements whilst lacking sufficient sources, averaging less than one verifiable source per page of writing making the whole article dubious at best and more akin to an opinion piece that is unsupported by the official manifesto of the community. Additionally, Jie Liang Lin holds no qualifications in the area of social sciences or fields relating to gender equality. Finally, the article in question bears the classification of "Unauthenticated", which means that by academic standards it should not be relied upon. It is for these reason that I conclude that the source is not reliable, and constitutes original and/or biased research. This view appears to be held by User:Galestar also, but I'm interested in what other people think. Please edit article as you see fit.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Long post here. TL;DR bits in full-sized text. (Supporting explanations in small text.)
 * This discussion is not eligible for a third opinion. (That is limited to discussions entirely between two editors. We are well past that.)
 * MGTOW does not have an official organization. As such, they do not have a manifesto, mission statement or anything similar. (If they did, we could not use absence of the phrase "anti-feminist" to say they are not "anti-feminist". There are clearly one thing while their mission statements describe them as something else. Terrorist organizations with mission statements describing peace and harmony, for example, are a dime a dozen.)
 * The bars for inclusion here are coverage in independent reliable sources and WP:WEIGHT. (While individual "members" of MGTOW might say anything good, bad or indifferent expressing anything from rage to indifference, we can't use any of that. We're stuck with what independent reliable sources say.)
 * As we have repeatedly established, independent reliable sources say it is a misogynistic male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community". Now the question is whether they are "anti-feminist". Again, it's a question of independent reliable sources. (Again, the author is seen as the lynchpin, called "a highly-active feminist campaigner with questionable motives and BIAS". Oh and the source doesn't sufficiently cite it's sources and "unsupported by the official manifesto of the community". And the convenience link says it is "Unauthenticated" (scary!). Finally, "the source is not reliable, and constitutes original and/or biased research".)
 * I don't care what your opinion of the author's other work is. That is not part of WP:IRS. Transcript Verlag has been around for quite some time in academic publishing. They are a reliable source. (Yes, the author says MGTOW is "mostly straight, white, middle-class men" and (gasp!) anti-feminist. Non-shocking, non-ground-breaking claim: a misogynistic male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community" is "anti-feminist"?!?! Not stunning. No film at 11! I don't know how you decided the author is the most biased author in the history of the written word, and I don't care. It's a less-than groundbreaking statement from a reliable publisher.)
 * Yes, the source doesn't cite sources. It doesn't have to. (While those who wish to challenge everything would like to be able to go down the rabbit hole of challenging the source's sources' sources' sources and every sources understanding of those sources, that is simply not how Wikipedia works. If independent reliable sources say MGTOW is anti-feminist, Wikipedia says MGTOW anti-feminist. If independent reliable sources say the Earth is spherical, NASA landed people on the Moon and HIV causes AIDS, we report those too. Yes, there are claims of bias and conspiracy theories about all of those. But independent reliable sources don't lend them any credence, so Wikipedia doesn't either.)
 * MGTOW does not have an "official manifesto of the community". That's irrelevant to this question. (It doesn't have an "official" anything: membership list, by-laws, logo or mailing list. Nothing. So no, we don't quote it and our sources don't cite it. If MGTOW did have a manifesto, the most we would do is identify it as what the group says. If the manifesto said they were all about peace, love and puppies frolicking joyfully in fields of daisies, we would still report that it is an anti-feminist, misogynistic male supremacist group "on the borders of the hateful incel community".)
 * Yes, the convenience linked text is unverified. The link is not the source cited. (It is the final revision of the text submitted by the author to the publisher. The website you are reading it from has not verified that it reflects what Transcript Verlag published. If you feel there is some critical difference between the text presented, you are certainly welcome to pull the published text and raise the issue here. Otherwise, "Unverified" is just another claim to throw against the wall to see what sticks.)
 * Yes, the source engages in "original research". That's exactly what sources should and do do. (Wikipedia editors may not us original research of their own. That is completely unrelated.)
 * Yes, the source is "biased", so what? (You are biased, I am biased, MGTOW is biased, NASA is biased, InfoWars is biased, the New York Times is biased. (Yes, reddit will attack me for saying InfoWars is biased and say I have "admitted" the NYT is biased.) No one pretends otherwise. Wikipedia seeks to present what independent reliable sources say without adding our own bias. WP:NPOV is not about somehow magically scrubbing the world of bias. It is about fairly representing what the sources actually say. If you feel we are unfairly omitting SPLC's coverage of MGTOW's picnics with puppies frolicking in fields of daisies, please say so.)
 * The source is an independent reliable source. "Anti-feminist" accurately reflects what it says. (We could add in the demographic statements.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It has yet to be established that this is RS, stop simply asserting that is RS and show evidence. Galestar (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if you can demonstrate it as RS (which you haven't yet), WP:RS says "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate". Statement should be attributed not just presented as objective fact. Galestar (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * +1 to everything SummerPhDv2.0 has said. Galestar must have missed the paragraph in which they discuss why the source is reliable. And I'd like to emphasise again that we don't care what a hate group says about themselves; we care what reliable sources say. In fact that's true for any organisation, but particular caution needs to be had for hate groups. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of bald assertions that this is RS, but no actual explanation. Galestar (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:RSN is that-away. Go take your concern there. Either way, there are multiple sources for the comment now, and one of them is Vice, which absolutely is reliable. You should drop this stick.--Jorm (talk) 22:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Re:RSN: The onus is on you to prove RS. Galestar (talk) 22:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Re:Vice: Again just more bald assertions. See  "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice magazine or Vice Media websites, including Motherboard and Vice News. It is generally regarded as more reliable for arts and entertainment than for politics"  Galestar (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Just do a search -Snowded TALK 18:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * More Original Research, great contribution! Galestar (talk) 20:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Per WP:IRS "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses." The publisher here is Transcript Verlag, whose English-language publications are distributed by Columbia University Press who says they are, "one of the leading academic publishers on the German-language book market." If you wish to dispute that Transcript Verlag is a reliable publisher then yes, take it to WP:RSN. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:37, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You should probably read the things you're quoting to try to support your position, as you've just made my point for me. It has yet to be demonstrated that this research paper "has been vetted by the scholarly community".  Galestar (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Take it to WP:RSN or drop the stick, you are wasting everyone's time -Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 03:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, onus is on you to demonstrate RS, not me. Demonstrate RS or don't add it.  Galestar (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * , did you read the sentence: The publisher here is Transcript Verlag, whose English-language publications are distributed by Columbia University Press who says they are, "one of the leading academic publishers on the German-language book market."? It does exactly what you're asking to be demonstrated. — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it. To quality as RS according to the quoted polocy an article must BOTH be "vetted by the scholarly community" AND published in reputable peer-reviewed sources.  So far only the latter has been satisfied.  Galestar (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you think peer review is (in the context of academia) if not vetting by the scholarly community? — Bilorv (he/him) (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * My entire complaint about the source is that it has yet to be demonstrated that this article was peer reviewed. Everyone keeps dancing around that question. Since there have been a number of other sources added I'll drop the RS question. This is not to be taken as my agreement that the other sources are necessarily RS (Vice is definitely NOT) just that its more trouble than its worth.  I'll constrain my arguments to the original point about the placement of this statement rather than its sourcing. Galestar (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That's basically what I'm asking for. I only have a problem with it being *the very first thing that is said* about the group.  Is that really the most pertinent fact about the group that it needs to be absolutely first?   Article starting with "[Subject] is an [X]" it better be an absolute objective fact that they are X and X must be the most relevant pertinent fact about the subject.  To have something like this, where it is, is obviously not NPOV.  And then to refuse to even Discuss it before trying to FORCE the content into the article?  What is going on here? Galestar (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No. It is the most important, most visible thing about the "group". The misogynist behavior is absolutely the only thing anyone knows or cares about the group who do not subscribe to its ethos. So it's going to be right up there, front and center, until you can provide sourcing that says otherwise.--Jorm (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be the most important thing *you* care about, and most important thing you'd like the rest of the world to know about them - "they're evil, read no further" - but that doesn't make it absolutely the most important thing. This is extremely transparent POV pushing.  Galestar (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I think it may be wise to begin talking about a competence is required topic ban for Galestar. --Jorm (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's how you want to silence dissent, I guess I can't stop you. Galestar (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The compromise solution put forward by Bovlb is sound in its reasoning. Would encourage all to give it serious consideration. On the other hand, Jorm's suggestion of topic-banning someone he is in an edit-war with is a farce at best; One side of this discussion is being (generally) constructive, the other is being unyielding. The notion that editors need to 'disprove the claim is ridiculous and shows a profound ignorance of policy.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 04:49, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * (ec)Concur given s/he is refusing to use the RS notice board. Promethean has also just deleted mutiple warnings from their talk page and rather amusingly dumped a barn star on my talk page suggesting I get back into a box.  May be time for an ANI case if they don't get their act together in a constructive way -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 04:50, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I refuse to take the onus onto myself when the onus actually rests on you to demonstrate that it is. You are the one refusing to demonstrate RS for a source that you insist on including - and for the very first sentence nonetheless!  If asking you to demonstrate the reliability of your source for that is a bannable offense, give it a try maybe you can silence me.  Galestar (talk) 05:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Promethean is more then entitled to redecorate their page however they wish and the barnstar is nothing if not sarcasm; Handing someone a 3RR warning 12 hours~ after their last edit to the article is at best a farce, especially when an edit-warring reminder was already on the page, and no article space edits have occurred since.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I'm still amused rather than hurt :-) The other link didn't directly link you to the 3RR policy, hence my adding it, so there would be no doubt if you started up again. Otherwise the RS notice board is the place to go -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)t
 * Fantastic - You have no idea how refreshing it is to find a fellow Wikipedian who takes banter in a light-heated manner. But sure, I'll take my objections with that specific citation to WP:RS for now.  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I thought I'd add this piece to the conversation -- Antifeminism Online: MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) from   There's a  complete online version available  here:  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Am I missing something? That seems like the same paper. Galestar (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * You're not -- I scanned too quickly! Apologies. Dumuzid (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * No no! I quite like User:Dumuzid's thought process; If we add the citation for the statement twice, that makes it twice as reliable. Right guys? :-)  « l | Promethean | l »   (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely!  Not that bolstering is necessary, but every little bit &c.! Dumuzid (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Anti-feminism is a core (if not "the core") proposition of this group. In addition to the references provided, it comes across clearly in reviews ranging from New Statesman, even to The Sun , and features in the title of "MEN GOING THEIR OWN WAY: The Anti-Feminism Survival Guide (2019)". It makes no sense to take such a reference out of the lede. We have to follow what the RS say (and at a WP:COMMONSENSE level, what is obvious to any reader on this topic). We should close this discussion and move on. Britishfinance (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019
Much of this article has been modified to represent MGTOW in a negative light by biased editors. Please add [citation needed] superscript and remove biased opinions. JNorr44 (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ Nothing actionable here.--Jorm (talk) 02:40, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Citations needed!
I think we really need to get some sources for various bits of reported speech. I can't really speak to the truth or not, but it rankles at me to see:

"Associated with the alt-right, the MGTOW community has been called a misogynistic male supremacist group."

...Without a citation for who says they are associated with the alt-right, and who called them misogynistic male supremacists. The reader needs to be able to see where these comments have come from, and it's substantially below Wikipedia's standards to report something as prejudicial as that without a source for it.

Again in the Political Stance section, we see:

"Originally libertarian, the community later began to merge with the neoreactionary and white-nationalist alt-right. MGTOW has been described as misogynistic."

Again, no sources. Who said they were originally libertarian? When did that change? Did the whole movement become alt-right? Says who? Did their views change at all in making that shift?

I'm particularly concerned about this last point because the neo-reactionary community is typically very keen on traditional marriage and having children which doesn't really fit with what the article tells us about MGTOW.

I'm not disputing any of what the article says - I genuinely don't know myself. But when an article says "...has been called..." and then doesn't tell us who called them that, that's an alarm bell. LostAlone (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * statements in the lead other than direct quotes do not require citations, as they summarise the body. In this case, they summarise the "Political stance" section (which says "misogynistic" and attributes the "male supremacist" to the SPLC). And that brings us to the second point: the "Political stance" part you quote is in fact sourced by four references (bundled as one); I've moved the bundled reference a sentence ahead to make this clearer. — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
The article as a whole takes a single perspective regarding the subject matter. Politically and socially oriented articles should include all points of view about the topic, or at least the major ones. In particular, since the topic is a political/social movement, the views of the movement should also be explained with citations to main representatives of that movement. Wikipedia is not a personal blog or a newspaper, but a free encyclopedia, and the reader should be informed about all aspects of the topic as much as possible, and left to decide on her/his own what to do with that information. The NPOV tag should not be removed until this issue is resolved to all editors' satisfaction, essentially until all major views on the topic are explained in the text with proper citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideophagous (talk • contribs) 18:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say about a topic. What specific independent reliable sources do you believe are missing?
 * Wanting an independent reliable source to specify the beliefs of a decentralized group with no formal organization does not mean the source will actually exist. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 18:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * We need to remove the NPOV tag as it's not warranted. I would, but I'd be at 3RR.  There's no way this will be "resolved to all editor's satisfaction" since it's pretty clear that Ideophagous doesn't agree with the page consensus.--Jorm (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You need to specifically outline the area of non-neutrality (e.g. refer to statement X/reference Y), and then have a discussion on it. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Independent reliable sources are indeed cited, but they all take one side of the topic at hand, which is not acceptable for political/social topics. For example, the sub-section about Pick-Up artists mentions the views of PUAs about MGTOW, but not the views of MGTOW about PUAs. A balanced article would have both views with proper citations. There are many articles and books written by MGTOW gurus, and any of them could serve as sources on the opposite view(s). Other view points, such as Red Pill articles that are also anti-MGTOW or not totally aligned with MGTOW views, should also be added. There's a whole spectrum of opinions concerning MGTOW, and the article represents a single one which unfortunately indicates a bias on the part of the author(s)/editor(s). Let's not even get into scientific studies which prove or disprove claims made by MGTOW people, and should also be explained and cited. The article is simply lamentably lacking on many levels.
 * Whether I agree or disagree with the content of the article is also not the issue here. Satisfying neutrality is also not difficult, as long as all major views are represented and cited properly. Also, if opinions by MGTOW members can be dismissed because it's a "decentralized group with no formal organization", then opinions about MGTOW can be equally dismissed for the same reason, since a "decentralized group with no formal organization" does not have formally stated or consensual opinions that can be assailed or criticized as representing the movement. The article in its current form however claims to know what MGTOW is and what its opinions are in specific terms, thus disqualifying the argument that MGTOW opinions, or other opinions in between, cannot be represented.
 * As for the sources of alternative opinions, I would let future editors decide on what to add, though the quality of sources should be monitored obviously.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether I agree or disagree with the content of the article is also not the issue here. But that is precisely the issue, and what you should focus on.  Either (1) present referenced content that you feel should be included, or (2) discuss inappropriate referenced content that should be deleted. That is how this works. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Britishfinance I disagree. The observation that an article is not neutral and needs further editing to satisfy the neutrality criterion, does not require agreeing or disagreeing with the content of the article. One could notice the lack of neutrality as a bystander with little investment in the topic, or with pure intellectual and non-emotional investment. Editors with opposite views might also try to edit the article in their favor, but that is why we have multiple editors to monitor each other's work.--Ideophagous (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read WP:NPOV. The first paragraph says Drive-by tagging is discouraged. The editor who adds the tag should address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag..  If you can't be specific about your concerns (per my note above), nobody will be able to engage with you. thanks Britishfinance (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed with other comments here - either post reliable sources not included in the article for addition, or post text not supported by reliable sources for removal. PearlSt82 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The topic is not the reliability of sources but the neutrality of the article. Please re-read the discussion.--Ideophagous (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * @Britishfinance I have specified an example of lack of neutrality above, concerning the PUA section. I also mentioned the lack of citations and sources from major MGTOW representatives themselves (for example those who have a large social media following and have published books on the topic, such as Rollo Tomassi), which is a big neutrality red flag on its own. There are many other points displaying lack of neutrality, and I would be happy to discuss each one of them.--Ideophagous (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * So the PUA section says MGTOW have a reciprocal disdain for the pickup artist community. Do you disagree with this? Are there PUA references quoted here that you think are wrong or misrepresented?  Are their other PUA references that you feel are missing? This is what specific means. Britishfinance (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree to the extent that it's a somewhat vague statement that should be further explained. Rollo Tomassi has detailed views concerning the PUA community in his book "The Rational Male" which I can quote and add to the article. Let me give you one further example of lack of neutrality: the article mentions the "cock carousel" as a myth espoused by MGTOW adherents. The statement that it is a myth is an opinion and not a fact. It may or may not be true, and should therefore be cited alongside opposite opinions with more detailed explanations as to why it could be true or false from different sides of the debate. Mentioning only the opinion that it is a myth makes the article biased, regardless whether this opinion is objectively correct or not. The section could look as follows: MGTOW view of the "cock carousel" and their justification of it + opposite view and rebuttal + back and forth debate on the topic + scientific studies concerning the subject if they exist or mentioning that no such studies exist. --Ideophagous (talk) 20:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, just too vague. Show use the specific content and reference you want to add - only then can we have a proper discussion; otherwise, we are just getting into a fora on the subject, which is not what a Wikipedia Talk Page is for (see tags at the top of this page). Britishfinance (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:BIASED and WP:FALSEBALANCE.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 19:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Irrelevant. This is not a topic about evolutionary theory for example where some creationist is trying to claim "false balance", but an actual political/social topic where, by its very nature, multiple views exist equally on the scene and must be explained and cited. The validity of the opinions should be left to the reader to decide, and not to the editor/author to allow or censor. -- Ideophagous (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * "The validity of the opinions..." Um, you've been repeatedly asked to provide independent reliable sources for the opinions you feel are missing. You have not done so. We cannot use self-professed "gurus" of MGTOW. They certainly are neither independent nor reliable. We cannot cite various posts from Reddit. We are citing all of the independent reliable sources we have. We treat them neutrally. Independent reliable sources say MGTOW is anti-feminist/alt-right/misogynistic/male supremacist/etc., so Wikipedia says all of these things. If you have independent reliable sources we are missing, feel free to present them. Otherwise, there's nothing further to say. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 20:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read above for an example of an alternative source that can be added. As for the sources in the article that you call "independent and reliable", that is hardly so for many of the sources. No newspaper or book can by any means be considered "independent" or "reliable". The only sources that approximate an ideal of independence and reliability are articles on scientific journals, and even those can be challenged by other scientific publications. Books and articles represent the opinions of their authors, and such sources can also be cited for opposite views. As for actual edits and additions with sources, I shall add them when I have time.--Ideophagous (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Read above for an example of an alternative source that can be added. That is not an example in Wikipedia. For it to be an example, you need to propose the specific content + specific reference.  Otherwise, we are just in a fora, which is not what a Wikipedia Talk Page is about (see tags at the top of the page).  thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * No newspaper or book can by any means be considered "independent" or "reliable". You clearly do not understand what Wikipedia means by "independent reliable sources".
 * "Independent" sources are those not connected to the subject. Members of MGTOW, those writing for MGTOW, etc. are not "independent". Were this article about a band, members of the band, their label, their producer, their management, etc. would not be independent. Rolling Stone magazine, the New York Times, etc. would, in most cases be "independent".
 * "Reliable" sources are those with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, editorial oversight, etc. With very rare exception, someone's blog, Reddit posts, etc. are not reliable: they are "self-published sources". The author writes whatever they write, no one is fact-checking or editing their work. They click "publish" and it's on the web. Mainstream newspapers and magazines, books from mainstream publishers -- especially academic publishers -- are much more likely to be considered reliable. All of this is outlined in more detail at WP:IRS.
 * We keep asking you to provide independent reliable sources. We're looking for specific sources. Insisting they must exist in not helpful. Giving us details directing us to a specific book or article is what we are looking for. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This is circular and I'm going to close this thread tomorrow morning unless the OP can provide specific examples of content to be changed and citations that support the change. We're not here to teach someone what NPOV means.--Jorm (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this article has a neutrality problem. As I stated in an earlier thread, this article only is sourced with left leaning sources, all of them (such as comedian David Futrelle, for instance) being against the MGTOW "movement" or whatever. Not to mention the presence of boogieman polemical terms like "alt right" and "incel", without the article explaining how this movement, which is focused on not getting married, is related to either. Saying "MGTOWs advocate male separatism and believe society has been corrupted by feminism, a view shared with the alt-right." is a bit manipulative, as the "alt right" is not the only group who asserts that opinion. There are conservatives and others who view that modern feminism has become detrimental to society, saying only the alt right believes it is misleading. KingofGangsters (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I explained previously, you are misunderstanding what a "source" is. That Futrelle has written comedy, a blog, cupcake recipes or anything else is irrelevant. He is not the source. The source is the publisher of New York magazine. They clearly have editorial oversight at The Cut and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you disagree, please take your concern directly to Reliable sources/Noticeboard. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:52, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

This article needs less polemics
Although most controversial right wing concepts on the Wiki tend to get ill reputes due to bias, there is at least a need to obey WP policies here. For instance (and this is just one example}:

"Originally libertarian, the community later began to merge with the neoreactionary and white-nationalist alt-right. MGTOW has been described as misogynistic."

This is essentially "I don't like the idea, so here are are some scary buzzwords that makes the concept look bad to our easily influenced readerbase" I am definitely NOT a sympathizer, but this is obviously slightly opinionated. MGTOW from the looks of it is an non racial ideology that men from all backgrounds take in, and most reject the WN ideals. Although editing this won't go well with the proprietors of this article, I think there needs to be contradictory, reliable sources that give neutrality to the subject. Otherwise it's terribly one sided. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Neutrality is not about giving equal weight to "both sides". It's about following what the sources say. The passage you quote is well-cited. Can you provide reliable sources of analysis that you feel is being omitted in the article's text? — Bilorv ( talk ) 11:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is "well cited" by those on the left wing spectrum. As a matter of fact, only left wing, feminist view points are cited in this. Seeing as those groups are against the concept, I assert that there should be sources on the other side that are less discriminatory against the concept. David Futrelle, for instance, isn't really reliable, and the only work he's done is on his own blog, We Hunted The Mammoth.KingofGangsters (talk) 22:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Whether or not a source is a reliable source or not is seldom about the author. (The exceptions are primary sources making non-controversial statements of basic info about themselves and recognized experts on a topic when given in-line attribution. We might cite a statement from Stephen Hawking giving his birth date or give his definition of "cosmology".)
 * In the present case, David Futrelle is not the source, though he is the author of the article. That he may also write for We Hunted the Mammoth is immaterial. The Cut, part of New York magazine is the source. Were I to start a page on wordpress and give my opinions on MGTOW, that would be a self-published source. If I write a news blog for New York magazine, it's entirely different. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 23:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Motion to remove "Manosphere" template from this page
I found this page through, sadly, reading about killings in Germany on the current events page tonight. As I have referenced on Talk:Manosphere and Template_talk:Manosphere, there are numerous problems with the subject pages, namely regarding NPOV and reliability of sources. Due to these, I move that for the current time being, immediately, and until the aforegoing issues are resolved, the Manosphere template be removed from this page. 12.49.46.42 (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see a single compelling reason here.--Jorm (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It is well established that MGTOW is a part of the manosphere, and so the template should remain. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes to make more politically neutral
There are two issues with this article.

MGTOW is described as a movement where it is on fact more of a philosophy with no real rules or definitions as to what it is. Within the philosophy you do start to see individual movements as men that chose to go their own way start to find tribes as we are all want to do. There's is only one governing factor amongst MGTOW that can be agreed on and that is marriage is a bad idea whether that is through experience of the courts or hearsay amongst other men.

The only other thing that still needs changing is that the article aligns it politically with the alt right, MGTOW itself has nothing to do with this whatsoever, as a philosophy it has no ideologies, this doesn't change the fact that some that follow the philosophy hold these opinions, but definitely not all. By making these changes, and I don't think it would wrong to mention alt right followers of this philosophy, you would have a more neutral article. HereToMakeEdits (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC) — HereToMakeEdits (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ❌: Wikipedia is primarily based on reliable secondary sources and not the opinions of its editors. — Bilorv ( talk ) 12:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article only includes information from individuals and groups who have a political and ideological bias. Like the alt righ and the SPLC.

Also the article fails to include information that disproves the mgtow = incel narrative. One example would be the CNN news segment about MGTOW. The CNN news segment includes interviews with a mgtow who is a divorced Father "BigJohn". The CNN segment on mgtow also claims that a lot of bitter divorced men are attracted to mgtow.

You could also go onto YouTube and watch countless mgtow guys talking about how they were treated by their ex wives and girlfriends. So the idea that these guys are all virgin incels is easily refuted.

If anyone is worried about mgtow guys becoming to radical and would like to offer these guys a healthy alternative then I'm all for that. I just don't think that lying about them is the right way to go about that.

Also the claim that MGTOWs are a part of the incel community is an outright lie. You only have to go watch the CNN news segment on MGTOW from December 2018 Anti propaganda 321 (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2019 (UTC) — Anti propaganda 321 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The article does not say that MGTOW is part of the Incel community, so your point is moot. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 17:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Methinks Anti doth protest too much... 2600:1700:C960:2270:2950:A929:6885:5F2 (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Anti seems to have been a drive-by editor, 3 edits here, none since the 26th of December. The OP, HereToMakeEdits, is clearly here not to make edits as their only edits were to their userspace and the one starting this thread, so one less than Anti - unless they were the same person of course. Doug Weller  talk 12:08, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The article makes a false Claim  about MGTOWs associating themselves with alt right ideology. The fact that you haven't provided any  evidence to support that claim just proves that you are lying. I challenge you to find one quote from a mgtow that supports this claim. You won't find one because MGTOWs have never supported the alt right.

At least explain this to me so I can understand the strange logic of these Wikipedia editors. There are a lot of black mgtows on YouTube. Do you honestly think they all support racists groups like the alt right? Anti propaganda 321 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not "(provide) evidence", it cites sources. Independent reliable sources cited in the article back up the statement. Please review the sources cited and check back if you believe that the sources cited to not support the wording used in the article or the sources do not meet the criteria specified in Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 00:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
 * "Independent reliable sources cited in the article back up the statement." is clearly false, since those sources are partisan Leftist narratives and if checked, are based upon personal political opinion rather than any real world investigation. If investigated, both Far Left and Alt Right are explicitely against MGTOW because Men Going Their Own way were, are and will be a fundamentally Libertarian philosophy, not a movement or a organisation. 94.222.51.86 (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * [citation needed]. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2020
Please change 'is an anti-feminist' to 'is an anti-misandrist'.

Please make the above changes because MGTOW men do not accurately fit the definition of 'anti-feminist' because they do not oppose any women's rights including but not limited to the right to free speech, the right to vote, the right to work, the right to equal pay, the right to decide what to do with their own bodies, or the right to equal representation under the law as defined in the wikipedia article 'anti-feminist'. The correct term is they oppose 'misandry', whether it is real or perceived. Appellomancer (talk) 07:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌: Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary sources, not the opinions of its editors. — Bilorv ( talk ) 10:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This
https://www.counter-currents.com/2016/10/men-going-their-own-way/ This is next level unreliable: It's a blog, it's a neo-nazi blog, it's not just unreliable, the content published within is utterly vile. It is the very antithesis of a reliable source. I've removed it and related claims. This article clearly needs to be gone through and all its citations assessed for reliability. How was a claim cited by a self published neo-nazi blog ever allowed to be published here? Bacondrum (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So, just had a look and all the other citations seem to use reliable sources. Please, no WP:USERGENERATED sources and definitely WP:NONAZIS. Bacondrum (talk) 21:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Mgtow men going their own way
In the introduction to this wiki page its writen mgtow is anti feminist which is wrong pls edit it

Mgtow is not at all anti feminist it is pro equality

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.59.3 (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As repeatedly discussed, Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject. The sources say MGTOW is anti-feminist so Wikipedia says they are anti-feminist. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 15:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Business Insider source
I think the business insider Further Reading link has questionable reliability, and possibly the Globo/BBC Brazil source (currently #20) as well.

First, BI is listed as 'no consensus' on reliability. Second, the article itself seems biased against the movement even based on the title calling it 1) a cult, 2) weird, 3) assuming it's a subset of the Redpill community. The majority of the article is about Red Pill and it's history and it's only direct mention of a link between MGTOW and Redpill is is an assumption with no evidence: "this is a school of thought similar to Red Pill". Despite the title mentioning MGTOW, there's maybe 2 sentences of the article, so I think this is a poor reading to learn more about MGTOW. I came to this article knowing little to nothing about MGTOW and still feel I know little about how it differs from other communities like the seduction or Redpill community (neither of which I'm much of a fan of).

For the (translated) BBC Portugal source, which sounds like the most reliable news source listed, like the BI article the evidence seems to be anecdotal and limited to a few people. While I sympathize the the problem of reporting on a decentralized group like this that doesn't publish a consensus 'manifesto', going from some online posts and a maybe three members to a (weasel worded) statement like the following is questionable "For many, the Men Going Their Own Way movement is even more radical [than Redpillers]". So that source sounds almost like an editorial (as best I can tell, BBC Brasil and/or El Globo who hosts the article doesn't flag opinion pieces). Antonrojo (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. The BBC one reads like a news story and it's published by a high quality outlet. The further reading BI is a trashy editorial, I agree it should go and have removed it, same with the News.com editorial that was in the same section. Thanks for pointing that out. I tend to think this article is poorly sourced and should be merged into the men's rights article. Bacondrum (talk) 22:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2020
Remove misogynist Change anti-feminist to men's right movement in line 1 TusharDua (talk) 18:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)spa
 * No reasoning provided and no sources provided to meet the request.--Jorm (talk) 18:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2020
There are several references to this group being 'Libertarian' at some stage of its existence. None of the sources mentioned this. One of the used sources specifically states it was not a political movement. Please remove the affiliation between the MGTOW group/movement and the Libertarian party. Thank you!

"they are not a political movement nor do they seek to alter society" https://books.google.com/books/about/Men_s_Rights_Gender_and_Social_Media.html?id=AKgxDwAAQBAJ&q=mgtow+manosphere#v=snippet&q=mgtow%20manosphere&f=false Eomar2828 (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Not done
 * "Libertarian" and the "Libertarian Party" are not necessarily the same thing. The orientation predates the party.
 * The sources do discuss the original libertarian bent of the movement: "Men Going Their Own Way were in the past almost uniformly libertarian..." "As the MGTOW movement is entangled with alt-right and libertarian politics...". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Views on women and feminism
The section "Views on women and feminism" is structured more as arguments and counterarguments, as opposed to description of the beliefs of the group. I suggest that the comments by Angela Nagle, Mack Lamoureux and Barb MacQuarrie be moved to a separate section "Criticism of the Community". Martinkunev (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The general consensus (and resulting trend) on Wikipedia is to move away from criticism sections as they tend to create a "challenge" section. Integrating the material of a group's POV and relevant sources presents an integrated whole. So, we might say followers of a fringe diet say humans don't need vitamin B12, though nutritionists say the lack of B12 in the diet can lead to irreversible neurological problems.


 * In this case, the back and forth is mostly reliable sources saying members generally believe X because Y, which results in Z. Taking that apart would have the article explaining X twice: once as the belief and a second time to provide context for the Y and/or Z. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, criticism sections are problematic, I agree with SummerPHDv2's comments. That being said, the general format and prose of the article is pretty average. I can't put my finger on the issues, but it flows badly, the prose are clunky. Needs a heap of work. Bacondrum (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020
MGTOW does not support white supremacy or misogny, please remove that. Nottruedotcom (talk) 13:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide sources that support your suggestion.--Jorm (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please also review the sources used in the article, which state quite unequivocally that MGTOW is a misogynist movement. I will also point out that the article does not state that "MGTOW supports white supremacy", but rather that there is notable overlap between the membership of MGTOW and white supremacist groups. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2020
This article is completely biased against men and shows them as bad guys while telling us all women as great.It was lastly edited and shows mgtow as a hate orgnaisation and it needs to be changed Lord Petyr Baelish (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC) — Lord Petyr Baelish (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Because your account is so new, you are not currently able to make changes to the page directly. Edit requests are an opportunity for people such as yourself who are prevented from directly editing the page to request a specific change. Please provide the specific text you wish to see changed, and if it's more than a very minor edit (typo fix, etc.) please provide reliable sourcing to support the change. There are more details on edit requests at WP:ER. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * You edited your comment while I was saving mine, so to reply to your new comment: the article reflects the reliable sourcing describing the MGTOW movement. If you have reliable sourcing that contradicts that MGTOW is part of a hateful ideology, feel free to present it. As for your claim that the article is "biased against men and shows them as bad guys while telling us all women as great", I don't think this article makes any value judgments about men or women as a whole. GorillaWarfare (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Nowhere does this article say 'men are bad guys and women are great', or anything even vaguely like that. Seriously, read the article, and the sources that are used to support the content. Once you have done that, if you feel that there are specific changes that you want to suggest, make another edit request, citing the sources you would use to support it. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether) 14:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

misogynist, far-right
"(MGTOW), an online misogynistic hub...(part of) the modern, global far right". - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Jones et al., 2019


This peer-reviewed source has a general overview of the MGTOW phenomenon in its introduction (full text available via Google Scholar). Parking it here until I have time to go through it properly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

MGTOW entry requires significant revision for honesty.
The actual WIKIDICTIONARY definition is: (neologism, sometimes used attributively) Men Going Their Own Way: a social phenomenon of (mainly) heterosexual men committed to remaining single and/or celibate due to what they perceive as the risks of relationships, the undesirable qualities of modern women, and the negative influence of feminism.

Applying this more broadly, a man makes his own decisions -- regardless of the gender of the influencer.

Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is SAID TO BE an anti-feminist, misogynist, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism; there are men who feel that is a gross overstatement.

No Ma'am  came from the comedy TV show "married with children" during the 1980's. No reference is found from prior to the https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0642336/   episode of 11/14/1993.

Gender equality is not a lie; a less codependent writer could see the advantage of equality and interdependence.

Researchers can be found to implicate anything with anything.

Mark L (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Mark Antony LaPorta MD FACP, for myself--Mark L (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * None of this is actionable or sourced. You need to provide sources that support your claims.  A "dictionary" entry from another site does not fit the bill.--Jorm (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Wiktionary, like other wikis, is not a reliable source (WP:UGC). However I appreciate you pointing out that the definition there is lacking; I have updated it. Since, as you claim, "researchers can be found to implicate anything with anything", I'm sure you will have no problem providing reliable sources of similar quality to the ones used in this article that can support whichever changes you wish to see made to this article. Until then, there's nothing actionable here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary will tell you arsenic is a "nonmetallic chemical element (symbol As) with an atomic number of 33."
 * You need Wikipedia to tell you how toxic it is. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 03:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Not all RS describe MGTOW as misogynistic
ISBN 978-1097628322 comes to mind. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is far from a reliable source. It appears to be a self-published book by a member of the movement. This article is primarily written based on scholarly sources, and a self-published book is not going to cut it as a contradictory source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Independently published sources are not inherently unreliable, and on the contrary WP:SPS encourages field experts. For other further perspectives to balance out the article which touch upon the movement, see ISBN 978-1505110265 and ISBN 978-1905177172. Symphony Regalia (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely not a "field expert". Please read the policy: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Mr. Rivers does not appear to fit the bill. Please provide similarly reliable sources to the ones used in this article, not self-published sources by men whose only "expertise" appears to be that they are active members of the movement. The other books you've just provided appear to be similarly unreliable—you can't seriously be suggesting these books are on par with the sources currently used, or even usable as sources in general.
 * It's also not even clear that these sources refute the "misogynist" descriptor; if you are going to continue to argue that they are usable sources, please also quote the contradictory material for the benefit of those of us who don't have access to the books. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being previously published by independent publications or not does not definitively preclude a field expert from being a reliable source. Furthermore the other two RS you've been provided are indeed not self-published. You are pushing a rather clear POV here, and I also advise that you review WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Symphony Regalia (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no indication any of these people are field experts, and they certainly haven't been recognized as such by other publishers. There's also no indication either of the last two books even mention MGTOW, and given that The Manipulated Man was published in 1971, thirty years before MGTOW even existed, I seriously doubt it does.


 * As for the self-published source requirement, I am quoting from policy, not making this up on my own. As for POV-pushing, I am advocating for the inclusion of a clear descriptor supported by the reliable sources, and contradicted by no RS that I've seen. I didn't even think that members of MGTOW themselves refuted that MGTOW is misogynist—after all, the whole basis of the movement is that women are so terrible they must be avoided entirely. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia prioritizes is reliable secondary sources, preferably scholarly sources. Not primary, self published books. As mentioned above, Symphony Regalia, please find these kind of secondary sources to support your edits. Slp1 (talk) 02:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This article is a mess
This article is all over the shop, heaps of borderline sources, many claims included that are not made in the cited materials. I think the general gist is right - MGTOW are clearly an extreme misogynist separatist group, but this article meanders all over the place. I started to go through it, but I'm leaving it because these kinds of articles are often battlegrounds and I can't be bothered battling over POV claims and marginal sources. Just thought I'd put it out there that this article is a mess. Good luck and best wishes to those who aim to improve it. Bacondrum (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Maybe one of these days soon I'll get up the energy to take a pass at it; I have a lot of pretty decent book and scholarly sourcing from my work on related articles, and they talk about MGTOW a fair bit too. Your changes are an improvement at least, even if it needs a lot more work! GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Found that energy! I've at least fixed what was there, though I imagine there's still a good amount of room for expansion here. I've considerably reduced the article's reliance on news sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is a pretty terrible article. From what I can gather MGTOW doesn't have a misogynistic view on women at all. You only have to watch a couple of Youtube videos from MGTOW members to see that. I don't really have any personal opinion on these guys but to me they seem smart, pretty successful, and quite competent in psychology and philosophy, especially with regards to human nature. I think this separates them from Incels, which they are compared to in this article. To call MGTOW members misogynistic is fine if that's the opinion that someone holds, but that opinion shouldn't be used as propaganda in an encyclopedia.Wuffles1 (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are based on what is said in reliable, independent sources. The sourcing used in this article (primarily academic studies of the movement) are quite clear on the misogyny point. If you have similarly reliable, independent sources that contradict the "misogynist" descriptor, I'd be happy to hear about them, but your own analysis of YouTube videos from MGTOW members is not usable (see WP:OR). Also, I'll note that you're replying to a pretty old comment. As you can see in my response on July 11, I went through and addressed many of the major issues that Bacondrum mentioned -- poor quality sources and statements not supported by sourcing specifically. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I also do not agree with the use of "misogynist" as a descriptor in its definition here but I think the most important reason is that, whether sources believe it to be that way or not, I don't think it's appropriate for this kind of term to be here because it's such a subjective term. For example, imagine if most of these same "reliable sources" claimed MGTOW to be "bad." Does that mean that this should be one of the first descriptors of MGTOW, that it's a bad, anti-feminist, etc., movement? These sources, scholarly as they may be, are trying to get into the head of those in MGTOW, to determine if there is hate in their hearts, and while they can have an opinion on that, they can't scientifically determine that.

Contrast this with a descriptor like anti-feminist -- that is a good descriptor, as it can imply that MGTOW oppose certain feminist policies and ideas, and that is something you don't need to scan someone's brain to determine -- anti-feminist as a descriptor doesn't imply anything about the possible emotional state or attitude of someone who might be anti-feminist, it just tells you the types of policies they support. And a MGTOW person and a feminist in a conversation could probably easily agree on where they differ in policy, you either support/reject certain policies or you don't. But I don't see how they could objectively agree on whether the MGTOW hates women or not -- they don't have access to each other's brains and what they consider hate is quite subjective. I don't see why we need to know the state of mind of MGTOW on that level, or what many scholars subjectively believe about it. Descriptors that indicate the kinds of policies they support are much more useful and objective.

I am not necessarily opposed to the term "misogynist" in other parts of the article, like the criticism portion, I'm just opposed to it in the definition and the like. In a section on criticism, then you can point out what the scholars think about it. Leave the terminology in the definition to be things that are clearly, well, definable, and independent of subjective opinion, not merely clearly agreed upon by scholars. I think that the term "misogyny" is essentially loading a criticism section into a definition, and neatly so, with a single word. I don't think that loading should be a prerequisite of understanding the term; you understand the term and then seek to assess it. I don't think the term should be in the "Ideology" section either as again, when defining their ideology, we want to know about factual claims they make, and/or objective goals they have, not whether they, for example, "personally like or care about women," with "like" and "care" being quite subjective terms when used broadly. In the case of the sections in this article, the "Reaction" page is the only one where the term "misogynist" would belong, as it could involve scholars reacting or criticizing the group.

Another way to think of it: if a man wants to get married in our current system, then he would not be MGTOW. If a man didn't trust the system of marriage but adored women in most contexts, that man wouldn't be misogynist, yet he would clearly still be MGTOW... I think almost no feminists would say, "oh but you respect women so you are not MGTOW." No, he would just be a "respectful" MGTOW in their eyes, I would assume most would agree. So by contrasting the first two sentences of this paragraph, can you see how some descriptors are way more usefully defining than others? TBC1810 (talk) 02:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC) — TBC1810 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * If a group of people is known for their hatred of women, and that is supported by the sourcing, then it is reasonable to include the term in the lead. I disagree with you that "misogynist" can be compared to "bad"—misogynist has a very specific meaning, whereas "bad" is a vague value judgment. It's an odd hypothetical, because scholarly sources don't generally describe groups as "bad" for that very reason, whereas they certainly describe groups as misogynist. I also disagree with your last paragraph. What makes a man MGTOW or not is whether he considers himself a part of the subculture. I don't agree with you that a man who is distrustful of marriage is automatically MGTOW regardless of whether he affiliates himself with or even knows about the existence of MGTOW. It reminds me a bit of incels—there are plenty of people who would like to be having sex and aren't, but one is not an incel until they identify themself as a member of the subculture. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Dismissing a description as "merely clearly agreed upon by scholars" points to a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 19:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Female patterns and tenses
, what does "You'll need a source to put that in Wikivoice" means? I do not editorialize, it's about grammar. Is the phrase "courts favor the women in divorce proceedings" a part of "common manospherian belief that women follow a similar pattern in dating and marriage"? If yes, then it is strange: first everything is in the present tense, then "the women will divorce their husbands" is in the future tense, and then again "courts favor the women in divorce proceedings" is in the present tense. I believe the last two phrases should be in the same tense, no? P. S. Sorry if it is that I do not understand something about English grammar, English is not a native language to me, but it looks like an error. Wikisaurus (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW I left a note at User talk:Jorm because I think the revert may have been in error. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was. A lot of these single-word changes that subtly but importantly change the meaning in wikivoice to white wash or clean up an ideology blur together.  I misread what was happening; I'll self-revert.--Jorm (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

what does MGTOW stand for?
The intro and most of the article are hevily biased against mgtow. The only thing you learn from the intro is that mgtow is a community and is misogynistic and antifeminsit. But what are their beliefs? Why arent their beliefs described shortly in the intro? I'm affraid those who edit these delicate type of articles do everybody a diservice. Make this article informative, pls. Thank you!--31.22.56.41 (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources say about a subject.
 * The sources regularly and repeatedly say something MGTOW is a misogynistic, antifeminist online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 14:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Their beliefs are described in the intro: they advocat[e] for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. Further details are included in the Men Going Their Own Way, as is standard with these types of articles. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Propose Reversion
This article has failed WP:NPOV at least since April 2018. I recommend reversion to the article version on 00:30, 23 February 2018‎ and start over from there by adding a "Criticisms" section that meets the WP:NPOV standard. I will address this on the existing NPOV entry for MGTOW dating from July 2020.Smulthaup (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Uhh, you would be throwing away nearly a thousand edits' worth of work by rolling back to that version. The sourcing in the current version is pretty high quality; can you explain specifically what you dislike about the article or what you think needs to be added?
 * Regarding your comment in which I think you mean you intend to bring this to WP:NPOVN, I would recommend first explaining your concerns here. The first piece of advice at NPOVN is: "Before you post to this page, you should already have tried to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page. Include a link here to that discussion", and from what I can tell this is the first comment you've made here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This article has been a hot-mess since 00:30, 23 February 2018. That is why I recommend the reversion of the "thousand edits".  The new "Criticisms" section I proposed above could be summarized at the end of the intro.  But both the main part of the intro and the added criticisms need to be NPOV.  I also recommend that after the reversion-plus action, the article protection level be bumped up to WP:Full protection.  The "thousand edits" is exactly the source of the problem.  The NPOVN already had a stub-section discussing the problems with this article.  So, I'm not the only one who thinks this article has run-off the rails.  Smulthaup (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , none of what you want to see happen is going to happen because frankly there are no sources to support your position. You call it a "hot mess" but have no specific reasons why, just "I don't like it." Jorm (talk) 23:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRIT, In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present the prevailing viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias, whether positive or negative.
 * As for the stub at NPOVN, this is the first I'm hearing of it because the IP user also didn't bother to try to discuss here first (which I imagine is why their comment at NPOVN went ignored). I'm happy to try to work with one or both of you to address any concerns you have, but you've yet to actually say what your specific concerns are.
 * There is no chance this article is going to be fully protected as you are suggesting—because that almost completely shuts down editing, it's a protection applied only in the rarest of cases, and for short periods of time. The way you are suggesting to use it, to "lock in" your preferred version of the page, is not done—rather editors are expected to work together to achieve consensus on issues around NPOV, sourcing, etc. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking back thru the talk I can see that you-all have been arguing about this same problem (NPOV) for two months and that this page was once fully-protected for the same reason. I also see that some previous talk contributor has labeled you a "notorious feminist agitator" (which might agree with the activist implications of your chosen handle).  Name-calling aside, you are just confusing (intentionally or not) "reliable-sources" with "neutral point of view".  Just because a newspaper writes a biased article on a topic or a broadcast station puts out a biased news segment about it doesn't justify using those sources as a method for creating a biased article.  It is fine to say that so-and-so thinks idea Y is bad for such-and-such a reason but that shouldn't be confounded into saying that topic Y is bad because so-and-so said it is.  This article currently takes the second route at every opportunity.  So I am not buying your argument.  Smulthaup (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


 * My handle was chosen when I was fourteen years old and I assure you it was nothing so clever as me trying to convey my activist nature. Not to be rude, but... have you looked at the sources in this article? You're talking about newspapers writing biased reports when almost all of the sources here are peer reviewed academic publications.
 * As for the claim that this article says MGTOW is bad, it makes no value judgments on the subject. It uses (accurate) descriptors like "misogynist" and "anti-feminist" because MGTOW is widely described to be both of those things, but those are descriptors of the movements' ideology, not vague value judgments like "bad".
 * I'm also not sure what you're referring to when you mention "my argument"—I've yet to figure out what specifically you think is wrong with this page, much less argue against it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Smulthaup, "Neutral Point of View" has a specific meaning on Wikipedia which is distinct and different from its colloquial use. As for the idea that we simply restore a version you prefer, I would very much oppose that.  But one never knows where consensus might lead.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:NPOV is the link, if you need it. I find NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content can be a useful additional explainer as well, especially in articles like these. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Rather than continuing to wiki-laywer with User:GorillaWarfare and others, I am going to demonstrate how to fix this article starting with the summary. Here is my proposed NPOV intro created by combining the current article with the superior version from 00:30, 23 February 2018‎ plus some content from an April 2018 version:


 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.  The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. .  According to the columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.


 * Critics claim that MGTOW is is an anti-feminist, misogynist, online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. Critics claim the manosphere is a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists. alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.

This is just a sample but it should give any reasonable person an idea of what I am proposing. Although I am sure it won't satisfy the ideologs who are intent on making this article non-NPOV. Smulthaup (talk) 00:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Earlier you lambasted this article for its alleged use of news sources: Just because a newspaper writes a biased article on a topic or a broadcast station puts out a biased news segment about it doesn't justify using those sources as a method for creating a biased article even though it doesn't use many at all (and the ones in use are mostly just for the "reaction" section). Now you seem to be advocating to add major claims based on precisely these kinds of sources (Sunday Times, etc.) and what appears to be either an opinion column or a blog (The Conservative Woman). Generally speaking I think it would be best if you could find similarly high-quality sources for the claims you're suggesting be added, but if you find such sourcing and want to add the pieces around cost-benefit analysis/etc. to the Ideology section you'll find no objection from me.
 * As for your proposed reframing of the description of MGTOW as misogynist/antifeminist as one only held by "critics", that to me implies that it is a minority viewpoint that is opposed by a different group of people. Please provide reliable sourcing that supports this claim; otherwise it should continue to be treated as the mainstream view it is, not reframed to be implied to be a fringe view.
 * As for your comments around "ideologs who are intent on making this article non-NPOV", please assume good faith—myself and the others who've commented here have done nothing but try to understand and address your concerns, and that kind of accusation is completely unwarranted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you want me to assume your good faith then you are going to have to demonstrate it. It is clear that you have been waging an edit war for months to push an ideologically biased POV for this article.  I tried to help you by demo-ing a reasonable approach to this article but you refuse to make any effort to cooperate.  Please stop trying to frustrate true good-faith efforts to fix this "hot-mess" of an article.  Smulthaup (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * If you're so convinced that I'm stymying any attempts to "fix" this article, feel free to say so over at NPOVN (though I would recommend starting a new section rather than commenting in a months-old one, as people often don't notice edits to old sections). But I think outside observers will see that I'm just asking for sourcing to support your proposed changes, and that for some bizarre reason you've come in to this with an extremely adversarial approach towards me, treating my straightforward questions like "what is it about the article you're hoping to see changed" and "can you provide a better source than a blog post/opinion piece" as though they are somehow absurd.
 * This article has attracted pro-MGTOW POV-pushers for a long time (hence its semiprotection), and my involvement here has simply to ask people abide by WP:NPOV and WP:RS when they suggest changes. That is not "pushing an ideologically biased POV", that's stewardship and ensuring policies are followed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat: It is fine to say that so-and-so thinks idea Y is <insert value-laden adjective here> for such-and-such a reason but that shouldn't be confounded into saying that topic Y is <insert value-laden adjective here> because so-and-so said it is.  This article currently takes the second route at every opportunity.  If you don't like the word "Critics" then the simple fix is to substitute the name of the source author for the word "Critic".  In other words, replace <so-and-so> with .  So then it would read: Topic Y is <insert value-laden adjective here> because said it is. Hopefully that is abstract enough to be clear to you.  But if it isn't clear enough for you, then I can't help you.  Smulthaup (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Smulthaup You are going to get absolutely nowhere except a topic ban if you continue to talk to Gorilla Warfare that way, I promise you.--Jorm (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I heard you the first time, and I have responded to your suggestion. I will not condescend to you, as you have done to me, by implying you couldn't read my first answer and repeating it nearly word-for-word. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

So lets try it this way and see how you like it:


 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.  The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. .  According to the columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.


 * Scott Wright and others claim that MGTOW is is an anti-feminist, misogynist, online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. Angela Nagle claim the manosphere is a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists. Donna Zuckerberg claims that the manosphere is associated with alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.

That is how it should work. If you don't agree please respectfully submit your proposal. Smulthaup (talk) 01:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * You've read my proposal, it's the current revision of the page. My point remains that by wording it the way you have, you are implying that these shared beliefs, which are supported by far more citations than you're attributing in-text, are not the mainstream description of the movement. You've yet to produce any citations to support that. You've also not addressed my concerns that you are rewriting the first paragraph of the lead based on much poorer-quality sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Smulthaup, I just want to remind you that Wikipedia operates (generally) on consensus, and as such, if you want to make changes, you bear the burden of persuasion. I obviously can't speak for anyone else, but, for me, your approach and demeanor here have definitely impeded any attempt at persuasion.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * That concern is easy to fix: simply call them "Mainstream Critics".  For example:


 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.  The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. .  According to the columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.


 * Mainstream critics such as Scott Wright, Angela Nagle, Donna Zuckerberg, and the Southern Poverty Law Center claim that MGTOW is is an anti-feminist, misogynist, online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. These critics claim the manosphere is a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, pickup artists, alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.


 * Even though I think "Mainstream" is too much of a <value-laden adjective>, I would be happy to concede that much for the sake of Wiki-Peace. Smulthaup (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I oppose, without reservation, the use of "critics describe them as" style language. If we're going to have to do attribution of position, language like "all reliable sources and academic studies consider MGtOW to be misogynist, etc, etc, while its adherents claim they are not." The reality first; your fantasies second.--Jorm (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I have not been clear enough, and if not, I apologize. It is not the specific word "critics" or the usage of their names that I'm objecting to. It's that adding any in-text attribution, as we normally do for WP:FRINGE statements or biased opinions, implies that these descriptors are not the mainstream view, or that they are opinions only held by critics of MGTOW. When there is just one primary characterization of the movement among reliable sources, it should just be stated outright as it is in the current revision of the article—not couched with expressions of doubt would that make the reader wonder why the other POV is not represented (when in reality there is no such other POV). GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh come on now! It is just hopelessly biased to say that "there is just one primary characterization of the movement among reliable sources".  It is clear that you only accept as "reliable" sources that come to a particular preconceived ideological conclusion.  I have tried to help by including 100% of the sourced content from the current article plus sourced content from the earlier version.  But you won't accept any balanced NPOV position.  From here on we should just summarize the discussion at the NPOVN and if that doesn't work-out then it will have to go to ArbCom.  Smulthaup (talk) 02:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not "hopelessly biased" to say that there is just one primary characterization of the movement among reliable sources that I've seen. I've repeatedly asked you to provide similarly reliable sources to the ones in the article that refute any of the claims you're trying to dismiss as "critics", and you've yet to do so, but I'm happy to be shown quality RSes that I've somehow missed. If your argument is that there is some other characterization, show your sources, don't just handwave that they must surely exist. We can't write articles based on hypothetical sources. All you need to do is link a peer reviewed journal article or somesuch that refutes that MGTOW is anti-feminist, or misogynist, or whichever claim you're hoping to soften; this discussion surely could've been over with thousands of bytes sooner if you had.
 * The reason this article doesn't resemble the old version you like so much is because I took out a lot of the poor-quality sourcing and unsourced statements and replaced it with high-quality sources. You're certainly welcome to try your luck at NPOVN and/or ArbCom, but I don't think they'll be super impressed by you insisting the article be changed while refusing to provide any sources that contradict statements in the current version, or suggesting the article be reverted to its poorly-sourced previous version because it's more sympathetic to your cause than the sourcing supports. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I see you've just posted your proposed changes at NPOVN. I don't know if you missed it where I said it before or if you just chose to ignore the advice, but just in case it was the former: I'd really recommend starting a new section if you want to get any eyes on this discussion, rather than resurrecting the months-old section. People don't tend to notice new comments in old discussions. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I have moved the MGTOW item to the bottom of the NPOVN.


 * I'm still not buying it. In my various proposals I included 100% of the current article's intro (almost word for word) plus only sourced items from the previous version of the article.  If you have a reasonable alternative, I am respectfully waiting to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smalthaup (talk • contribs) 02:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I could add "probably" to "The earth is [probably] round" and it would include 100% of the previous sentence. That doesn't mean it should be added. I have already given you my suggested version: the current revision of the article. You have yet to provide any sources supporting that doubt should be added to the current article, and you certainly haven't explained why content sourced from singular op-eds/blogs/news sources ought to be more prominently mentioned in the article than the current version, which is sourced to multiple peer-reviewed academic journals, or even re-added at all. The WP:ONUS here is on you, not me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Instead of abstraction let try analogy: If I am writing an article about Flat-Earthers I wouldn't start the intro by saying "All Flat Earthers are crazy nutbags because Eratosthenes said so."  I would at least take the time to describe in neutral terms what it is that Flat-Earthers believe and later in the article I would include a list of the reasons Flat-Earthers believe what they believe along with whatever point-by-point refutations I could source.  So for example in an intro I would write:  "Flat Earther's believe the world is flat rather than round.  However, Eratosthenes experiments proved the earth is round and measured it's circumference to such and such a precision."  The current version of the article is NPOV because it doesn't even attempt to describe what MGTOW believe in terms that a member of MGTOW would recognize.  It simply launches into calling MGTOW various value-laden adjectives without even attempting to explain to a reader what it is that MGTOW believe.  The purpose seems to be to say that:  "All reliable sources believe that Flat-Earthers are nutbags." Without even explaining what a Flat-Earther is.  If I am writing a sourced article about Flat-Earthers then it is inevitable that I must cite Flat-Earther sources to describe what they believe in their own terms.  So we couldn't reject sources linked to Flat-Earther self-conceptions as unreliable just because we also have more mainstream sources that disprove their contentions.  If you do that no reader ever gets a clear picture of what Flat-Earthers believe they only get a value-laden description of them as nut-bags.  In this case we don't even have to rely only on MGTOW sources for their self-description we have published articles as sources.  But regardless, when refuting any argument one must at least be able to summarize the opposing point of view accurately, preferably in a way that the opponent would recognize.  That is a basic tool of rhetoric.  Smulthaup (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Well it's a good thing this article doesn't use descriptors like "crazy nutbags", because I agree that would be inappropriate. But saying that MGTOW is antifeminist and misogynist is no more inappropriate than saying flat earthers believe in an idea that has been firmly rejected by scientific consensus. Indeed, the article Modern flat Earth societies does just that: Modern flat Earth societies are organizations that promote the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is flat while denying the Earth's sphericity, contrary to over two millennia of scientific consensus.[3] Such groups date from the middle of the 20th century; some adherents are serious and some are not. Those who are serious are often motivated by religion[4] or conspiracy theories.[5] It does not gloss over the fact that the flat earth belief is pseudoscience and contrary to scientific consensus. I'll note that it also mentions that the belief is pseudoscience before mentioning that it is the belief that the earth is not spherical.
 * I have no idea why you are claiming that MGTOW members can't understand what "advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism" means—they're not illiterate.
 * But you are absolutely incorrect that we ease reliable sourcing rules in order to use, say, flat-earther sources or MGTOW sources. That is not the case; we rely on secondary sources to summarize their beliefs there and here in this page. If necessary, MGTOW sources could be used to make simple statements of fact, but they certainly can't be used to, say, refute that the group is misogynist. I also don't think it's necessary to use MGTOW sources for simple statements of fact, though, as the group is fairly well-covered in independent sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I second everything GorillaWarfare has been saying, but the invocation of "rhetoric" made me pause. We're not here to support MGTOW, or anyone else; neither are we here to refute them or anyone else.  We're here to try to summarize the reliable sources in order to create an encyclopedic article based primarily on reliable secondary sources.  If such sources don't find the specific beliefs or verbiage of the group particularly notable, then neither should we.  Again, it's possible I haven't read enough, and also, consensus can change.  But as I currently see it, the present version is preferable.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * My proposed edits never attempted to refute that MGTOW are "antifeminist and misogynist". Remember, my proposal included 100% of the existing intro which does already call them "antifeminist and misogynist" (according to sources as cited).  My proposal simply added back-in the (well sourced and non-MGTOW sourced) statement of their own self-conception.  Also I would reject the idea that "antifeminist and misogynist" aren't value-laden adjectives.  I'm okay with including these value-laden adjectives because they are indeed well sourced.  But the article as written excludes any non-value-laden presentation of MGTOW's own self conception (as described by the good sources which were already provided in the Feb & Apr 2018 version and are included in my proposal).  That is why I think your position is unreasonable.  Smulthaup (talk) 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly said, your suggested version introduces doubt where there is none. Or at least you've yet to provide sources showing there is. WP:NPOV does not say we should "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic or by the topic themselves"; it says we "represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." By stating the one significant view represented in reliable sources, without couching it in "critics have said" or "[author name] claims", we are representing it proportionately. By adding in-text attribution, we are treating it like we would one of several viewpoints on a subject, or a fringe view, and that is not representing it proportionately.This is not just my own view of how the subject should be treated, by the way; per WP:ASSERT: When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution. Thus we write: "Mars is a planet" or "Plato was a philosopher". We do not write: "According to the Daily Telegraph, the capital of France is Paris" because doing so would create the impression of doubt or disagreement where there is none. It is good practice, however, to include an inline citation to a reliable source to allow the reader to verify any fact that is not widely known.As for your claim that the sources in paragraph one are "good sources", some of them might be usable if we didn't have better sources, and some of them are unusable. But there is plenty of extremely high quality sourcing on MGTOW, including academic sources that describe what the movement is. We do not need to, nor should we, use poorer quality sources to summarize their beliefs. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Turd-Fling-Monkey is right, there is no reasoning with these people (i.e. ideologs). You have to out-crazy them. Unfortunately, I am all out of crazy today. I only have logic and reason left in the pantry. I admit to being an ideolog but they won't and that is the fundamental problem. Smulthaup (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I think I have been quite clear about how to achieve your change: provide sourcing to show that the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged in any significant way. I can tell you one way you won't achieve your change, which is throwing a tantrum and insulting the people you disagree with for following Wikipedia policy on NPOV and reliable sourcing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Talking to one's self is rarely helpful in advancing a dialog, but chacun à son goût. Have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I never said that "the mainstream view that MGTOW is misogynist and anti-feminist has been challenged". Therefore, why would I source that when I never said it?  Remember, my proposed intro included 100% of the existing intro in essentially the same form as it exists now.  And all my additions have non-MGTOW sources as supplied by the Feb & Apr 2018 article.  But there I go trying logic again.  Silly me.  Smulthaup (talk) 04:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, this is progress! Since you are not saying it has been challenged, then we can agree that per WP:ASSERT "When a statement is a fact (e.g., information that is accepted as true and about which there is no serious dispute), it should be asserted using Wikipedia's own voice without in-text attribution." since the addition of in-text attribution is the only thing keeping paragraph two of your suggested revision from being exactly the same as what's there now. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay I will take progress where I can find it. So how about this.  You write up a proposed intro that includes all of my first paragraph as-is and then you can write the second paragraph however it suits you and I will let you know what I think.  I'm tired of doing all the work around here.  Smulthaup (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The current lead paragraph strikes a good balance of reflecting how the movement is discussed in reliable sourcing: primarily that it's antifeminist and misogynist, while briefly mentioning the group's core belief and its position in the manosphere. Devoting the entire first paragraph to describing the movement without mentioning the movements it's almost always mentioned alongside, and without mentioning that it's antifeminist/misogynist, is WP:UNDUE weight not supported by sourcing. And as I've already said, there is no reason to use poorer quality sources to describe the beliefs of the movement when the ideology is quite well summarized by the academic sources. If there's anything you think is missing from the ideology section, I'm happy to help you see if it can be supported by higher-quality sources, but it seems you are primarily interested in giving the description of the movement more prominence in the lead, which I don't support at all.
 * I am not going to sacrifice the quality of this article just to appease you—in the end, only agreeing to one of two bad changes to an article still results in a poorer-quality article. Furthermore, though I may be the most verbose, I am not the only voice in this discussion—so far three people have firmly disagreed with your proposed changes, not just me.
 * It's quite rude of you to say "I'm tired of doing all the work around here" to someone who has been a substantial contributor to this article, and who has (in my opinion), been more than patient in trying to explain why your suggested changes do not follow policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought you meant that we were making actual progress. If you are serious, do what I asked and write up the second paragraph you want.  Otherwise, you are just cheating.  Smulthaup (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Fine, I'll do you one better and give you both the first and second paragraphs I think should be in the article:
 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is an anti-feminist, misogynist, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. The community is a part of the manosphere, a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists.


 * Like other manosphere communities, the MGTOW community overlaps with the alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.
 * You see, I already spent hours of time on this article in mid-July, cleaning up poor sourcing and carefully redrafting the lead to properly represent the sourcing. There is no need for it to be rewritten when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason either paragraph ought to change, other than "I liked it better before" and providing some mediocre or outright unacceptable sources that were (correctly) removed from the article and replaced with stronger ones (and not necessarily by me, by the way, I think those sources were gone by the time I got here, with the exception of the Vice source which I recognize). GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, in the spirit of constructive progress lets try this three paragraph idea:
 * Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW ) is a mostly pseudonymous online community  supported by websites and social media presences cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage.  The community is part of what is more broadly termed the manosphere. .  According to the columnist Martin Daubney, members of the MGTOW community believe that legal and romantic entanglements with women fail a cost–benefit analysis and risk–benefit analysis.


 * MGTOW is an anti-feminist, misogynist, mostly online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism. The community is a part of the manosphere, a collection of anti-feminist websites and online communities that also includes the men's rights movement, incels, and pickup artists.


 * Like other manosphere communities, the MGTOW community overlaps with the alt-right and white supremacist movements, and it has been implicated in online harassment of women. The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology, a category they began tracking on their hate group tracking project, Hate Map, in 2018.


 * That seems fair. Smulthaup (talk) 05:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm beginning to think Jorm was right about WP:IDHT, because it appears you have not even read my comments above.
 * The current lead paragraph strikes a good balance of reflecting how the movement is discussed in reliable sourcing: primarily that it's antifeminist and misogynist, while briefly mentioning the group's core belief and its position in the manosphere. Devoting the entire first paragraph to describing the movement without mentioning the movements it's almost always mentioned alongside, and without mentioning that it's antifeminist/misogynist, is WP:UNDUE weight not supported by sourcing. And as I've already said, there is no reason to use poorer quality sources to describe the beliefs of the movement when the ideology is quite well summarized by the academic sources. If there's anything you think is missing from the ideology section, I'm happy to help you see if it can be supported by higher-quality sources, but it seems you are primarily interested in giving the description of the movement more prominence in the lead, which I don't support at all.
 * There is no need for it to be rewritten when you've yet to provide a single compelling reason either paragraph ought to change, other than "I liked it better before" and providing some mediocre or outright unacceptable sources that were (correctly) removed from the article and replaced with stronger ones (and not necessarily by me, by the way, I think those sources were gone by the time I got here, with the exception of the Vice source which I recognize).
 * You can keep suggesting new paragraphs and versions until you're blue in the face, but until you can show that they are an improvement to the current lead (that is, well-sourced and properly weighted with the other material in the article), it's not going to happen. It's not a matter of suggesting versions until we're worn down and give in; I've been here a long time and that's yet to work. If it's a change that's detrimental to the quality of the page, it's not going in. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * It's like trying to negotiate middle-east peace: Is it a two-state solution or a three-state solution or just no solution at all.  I think I was crystal clear that the intro fails NPOV and that my proposed 3-paragraph solution is compelling because it fixes that defect.  But you seem to be unwilling to release any of the hostages.  This gets back to whole good-faith thing.  If you intend to be taken seriously you need to make a good faith effort to negotiate but you haven't done so this far.  The statements in the proposed first paragraph are fact-based, NPOV, non-ideologically biased, well sourced, and non-MGTOW sourced.  I don't know any other way to put it.  As I said I am all out of crazy today. Smulthaup (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * We are now up to five editors agreeing that your suggestions are not improvements. Have a lovely evening; I too am about out of energy for arguing this, and consensus is becoming increasingly clear. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Aha. I think I see the problem.  Smulthaup, no matter how crystal clear a failure is to you, nor how compelling you find your own drafts, you don't get to dictate changes, tone, or article structure.  Again, your burden is one of persuasion--and all you've managed to persuade me of is that you don't know Wikipedia very well.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way, saying that Flat-Earther's "promote the pseudoscientific belief that the Earth is flat" is indeed an inappropriate application of a value-laden adjective. I suppose I should decamp to that article and argue with them (even though I am not a Flat-Earther). Indeed the bias is always in the adjectives and sometimes in the adverbs. Smulthaup (talk) 04:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Just a gentle suggestion, but could it be possible that instead of there being multiple Wikipedia articles formed over years of editor collaboration that inappropriately describe their subjects, perhaps instead you don't quite understand how Wikipedia is meant to describe subjects such as these?
 * And in case you're wondering, no, I have not had any part in writing that article (aside from two vandalism reversions: ). This is just how Wikipedia treats subjects in which there is one mainstream viewpoint. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a waste of time as Smulthaup is has a pretty solid case of WP:IDHT going on. Unless there are objections, I'm going to close this as "nothing actionable" tomorrow.--Jorm (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Finally something we can agree on: I absolutely agree that this is a case of WP:IDHT, I just disagree about who it is that is refusing to listen and get the point.  Smulthaup (talk) 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , GorillaWarfare is an editor, administrator, checkuser, and a member of Arbcom with oversight permissions and over seventy-three thousand edits over the past 13 years. You, on the other hand, have less than a eight hundred edits and no permissions.  I'm not sure what kind of fight you're trying to pick here, but you are out-classed in every level.  You should sit down and listen. You have the opportunity to learn something. Jorm (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

MGTOW is regularly and repeatedly identified by high-quality reliable sources as an anti-feminist, misogynist community. That any particular editor feels being anti-feminist and/or misogynist is "bad" is immaterial. Additionally, it is not disputed by any reliable sources. Wikipedia verifiably and neutrally describes the community as anti-feminist and misogynist. That MGTOW is "mostly online" and advocates for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been destroyed by feminism is similarly verifiable and NPOV. There is nothing actionable here, unless the personal attacks continue, of course. That someone -- now blocked -- labeled an editor a "notorious feminist agitator" tells us that someone had a problem "using their words" to express their emotions, not that anything needs to be done to the article. (Hell, when I was called a "****ing ******ed ****" I'd have to assume we'd need to undo every edit I'd ever made.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 05:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The suggested re-writes seem to use questionable sources and are rather awkward, i.e. mainstream critics and cautioning men against serious romantic relationships with women, especially marriage. I don't think that they will find support. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can we just close this one - it is one newbe editor on a mission -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 05:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)