Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 15

This page is bias
Please allow editing 2600:1700:7130:8140:98C4:E5F4:A2CB:EE44 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The place to ask for changes in protection is thataway: WP:RFPP, but you'll need a better argument than "this page is bias" (and you'll need reliable sources that support your claims if you want to actually get any of your changes to stick). Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that most editors that claim POV-pushing or any kind of bias in this article do not think the reliable sources are not there. They think the sources are not represented well and/or information is missing. For example: one regular comment is the use of the word 'misogynist' in the lead section. In the archives, you can find a substantive discussion between me and a regular editor about the placing of this word, and how it might not be the best idea to overemphasize this characteristic by placing it in the first sentence of the lead section, especially when the sources are not that reliable and do not place such emphasis. Never did I ever hit a wall that hard on Wiki, to the point that I suspect WP:OWN. You could imagine that less regular editors are scared off pretty quickly. I think your response to the IP editor here is also kind of discouraging: bashing their argument and setting the bar to an edit unnecessarily high is not helpful. For the latter, I could only say that edits do not always require new reliable sources. Changing the representation of sources, placement of statements and copy editing are edits that do not require new sources. To make a long story short, please be kind to new or visiting editors, and don't shut the door like this. It's a tactic that I've seen too many times in the talk archives of this article, and it doesn't make this article and wiki better. From now on, I will suggest this to other users as well. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur with Writ Keeper. Some situations are WP:SKYISBLUE territory. Wikipedia is not censored and is written for the reader. If someone comes to this article, they should be told what this organisation is in the lede, with further detail expanding on that, further on. If we are truthful about an organisation, or an article subject, especially a divisive one, then inevitably some people will be disgruntled. We write per WP:NPOV and what the sources say. We can hide what this organisation is until later in the article, and use nice words to describe it, but that's not the way Wikipedia works. If that annoys the odd random IP, so be it. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:23, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * First, mind that IP users are HUMAN too, so 'odd random IP' might not be the best descriptor for the discussion starter, even a bit hostile. IP users have the full right to not be registered. I would humbly recommend retraction of that statement. I'm not going to discuss the contents of this page at this moment. I'm only commenting on the way that dozens of fairly new or anonymous editors are treated on these talk pages, and that more experienced editors are regularly hiding behind a shield of policy and fairly harsh words to keep the status quo, and are therefore discouraging boldness or constructive edits. Of course we try to write from a NPOV, but dozens of editors coming to this talk page to tell us that there might be something off in this article might be at least an incentive to discuss instead of discourage. And of course, this talk page also attracts lots of biased editors, but that does not justify harsh and unconstructive behaviour. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pointing a user who is requesting changes to page protection to the correct location to make such a request, and explaining what would be needed for a request to succeed (and that simply saying "this page is bias" is not likely to succeed), is not "bashing", it's being helpful. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm here to point out that what you think is 'helpful' might not be as helpful as you think. I've made my point, and I'm open to any constructive questions. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a FAQ at the top of this page explaining how to propose changes, along with the need for reliable sources. It isn't harsh to expect new users to read and follow it, nor to be a bit short with those who fail to do so. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:14, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that the FAQ is something that is very helpful for new editors. Shout out to the editors that compiled that one. But again, proposing an edit might not require reliable sources. Not gonna explain that again. Furthermore, I strongly disagree that being 'a bit short with those who fail' to read and follow the FAQ isn't harsh. Wiki has a complicated system of guidelines and policies, so show a little patience. Ask some additional questions to clarify what the user really means. Try to teach them how to connect their ideas to the inner workings of Wiki. That's all. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That's what the FAQ is for. Patience has limits when it comes to allegations of "bias" that have never been backed up by anything. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I question the competence of anyone who thinks WP:RS is an "unnecessarily high" bar. Writ Keeper didn't say anything about sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I will assume you read my comment. WP:RS is sometimes a high bar, but not unnecessarily high. However, setting WP:RS as the bar for any edit (which is clearly implied in the first response) is simply unnecessary. Again, most edits do not require editors to 'provide reliable sources', as other editors have already provided those sources. Think about rephrasing and copy editing. Thanks for questioning my competence, but I'll hard pass such judgement. Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying that; Wikipedia's fundamental policy of verifiability explicitly states it: all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. If you think people are allowed to make edits to mainspace that aren't supported by reliable sources, you are likely to have a bad time here, and not because of "misandrist bias" or whatever. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 00:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that it was not your intention to imply that any edit is subject to WP:RS. But you can imagine that a new editor might read it quite different. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's fine to suggest or make changes so that the page better reflects the sourcing already used, but when doing so, an editor still needs to be able to explain how and why their suggested changes are more properly reflecting the sources (and specifically which). No one is saying that an editor needs to come up with a new source to change how existing material is presented, but meaningful phrasing changes such as the ones you previously were suggesting, or changes to try to adjust an article's supposed bias, do need to have explicit reference to sourcing of some kind—new or existing. As for "copyedits", that seems to me to be a bit of a strawman. No one is saying editors need to provide a source to fix a simple typo, nor was that the kind of change this editor was suggesting. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 04:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you know exactly what the editor wanted to propose? And do you agree that, for example, moving around certain statements to improve NPOV might not require a thorough review of literature and/or an extended discussion? The balance between being bold and being careful in this article is really pushed towards the idea that almost any edit is reverted and/or put to extensive scrutiny. This section is a great example: literally no one has asked which changes the IP editor wants to make. Maybe it's time to give some new editors some air to propose new ideas, instead of shooting down everything. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A user asking for editing privileges to fix purported "bias" is not proposing just any edit (such as copy editing). RS are obviously in the context of OP's request. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't know (the extent of) the changes that the OP wants to propose. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:58, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter. As WK pointed out, edits in mainspace need to be verifiable. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (I didn't think it needed to be said, but just to be clear: I didn't mean *new* sources; if I had, I would've said so. But the burden is still on the editor wanting to make a substantive change to present RSes and a cogent argument based on the text of those RSes why their proposed change is supported, whether those RSes are already in the article or not.) Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It's "biased."  G M G  talk  00:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's be a bit less hostile and a bit more curious about the ideas of the editor. Thank you. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting tiresome. If you feel that regular contributors are biting newcomers unduly, the place to address it is at their user talk pages (possibly ending up at WP:AE), not the article talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2021 (UTC)


 * You misunderstand. Every edit is subject to WP:RS (or, more precisely, verifiability in reliable sources), no exceptions. I'm not implying, I'm openly asserting it, just as WP:V does. That includes things like copyedits: that doesnt mean an inline citation needs to be added for each edit, but since copyediting can subtly change tone and meaning, it is not immune to the need for verifiability. But that's all a red herring anyway; I don't need to ask questions to know what the OP's "ideas" are. I can recognize the same pattern as any other of the dozens of drive-by editors who post similar things to the talk pages of "manosphere" articles: they think MGTOW is not misogynistic, and that is a claim that *will* need citations and support from reliable sources. Other than pointing them to RfPP and RS, I'm not really sure what else you expect me to do, especially given that there are, again, dozens if not hundreds of equivalent comments on many other talk pages. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to engage in an endless discussion about RS/verifiability, as we probably agree on these principles. I'm only here to make the point that, in some cases, an editor can ensure verifiability without adding new sources. In my opinion, you've set the bar too high for a new editor to make contributions to this article. If you don't agree, fine by me. I'll keep pointing it out to new editors, as there are clearly other interpretations of such responses. On a side note, 'patterns' are  never  an excuse to treat new editors the way they are regularly treated on this talk page. I know that, especially on controversial topics, there is some kind of 'pattern', but we cannot hold one editor accountable for actions of it's peers. Almost all editors on Wiki started as some "drive-by" IP user, so no need to scare them off. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 16:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I were holding OP accountable for the actions of others, then I would've just told them "no, go away." I didn't do that. I may have been brief with them, but I don't think I was rude or intimidating. The pattern recognition I'm talking about is that I can tell that theirs isn't a case where they can contribute without supplying reliable sources, because they want to overturn the long-standing and well-sourced statements in the article that MGTOW is misogynist as evidenced by their post to RFPP that I linked to above. That kind of change (one against a long-standing and well-sourced consensus view) will always require reliable sourcing, and not telling prospective editors that up-front is doing them a disservice. This editor isn't taking a general interest in the article; they have a specific goal in mind that they've made explicitly clear, and pretending otherwise and leading them on without telling them what the expectations of them are is neither helpful nor kind. If I was being all of the things you claim that I am, then I would have just told them that it's a waste of their time and ours (and it more than likely is), but I didn't do that. Not sure what else you expect me to do. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

false info
Take out “misogynistic” and “White supremacy” Mgtow men do not hate women we see the game is rigged so we walk away no hatred what so ever, and its pro male philosophy not pro white, theres a significant amount of black men that are mgtow and all races for that matter, go to mgtow savior on youtube hes always preaching to black brothers a positive mgtow message. 74.128.74.229 (talk) 12:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ at the top of this page. We summarize published, reliable sources, not random YouTube commentators. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Misogyny?
Clearly you have an issue to use such inflammatory language. I would invite you to write with referenced fact rather than jaded opinion. 90.255.28.104 (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is fairly well-referenced as it is. If you would like to change the language, then please provide sources of your own to support your proposed changes. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:37, 26 January 2022 (UTC)`
 * What changes do you want to make? What statements would you group under 'jaded opinions', and what are the facts? Cheers, Pyrite Pro  (talk) 16:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2022
Hi Add See also category with following links

==See also== 85.135.198.249 (talk) 06:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Herbivore_men
 * Mount_Athos


 * Neither are really applicable. MGTOW is primarily defined by their hostility to women, and the strong overlap with the incel movement. These are a general disinterest in women, and a male-only monastery, respectively. Zaathras (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2022
Unfortunately these current MGTOW writings are widely inaccurate. Men Going There Own Way is just a philosophy, it is not a movement it is just the idea that due to current culture and laws that are disproportionately bias against men, that men should not marry or co-habitate so as to not fall victim to the legal system. That is MGTOW essentially, just an idea. Jc5729 (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if you read your own references in this article, I think you’d find that you already have all the information you need. I just read Jie Liang Lin’s article in its entirety and the findings and conclusions sections support this change. The introduction of this chapter—where the author states their initial position and assumptions, not conclusions—is seriously the only part of that paper that supports the existing description using heavy handed terms like misogyny, anti-feminist, etc. The rest of the paper offers a LOT more nuance, even in the conclusions. Leehawkins (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV
This article reads like a hit-piece which seeks to criticize and invalidate views and perspectives the author does not agree with. Example: "The Southern Poverty Law Center categorizes MGTOW as a part of the male supremacist ideology"

The SPLC is a left wing organization that promotes left-wing ideology that cannot be considered a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiggly666 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please learn to sign your posts, like this ~ with four tildes at the end of your comment. Thanks.
 * As to your comment, so what? SPLC is a reliable source for this sort of thing. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:54, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * According to people who agree with the SLPC perhaps. Many people (i.e. conservatives) do not. Squiggly666 (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, but this project has debated this source (SPLC) many times, and the community has decided that it is reliable. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 16:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well I am now disputing that. Sometime communities get things wrong. Squiggly666 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then this isn't the place to change the consensus on that. This page is for improving this article. -Roxy the grumpy dog . wooF 17:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I am disputing it in the context of improving this article. Do you have any reliable sources the the SLPC has been deemed a reliable source? Squiggly666 (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether many people (i.e. conservatives) agree or disagree with the SPLC is irrelevant. In determining due weight, . Editors of this page are not required to provide proof that the SPLC is a reliable source on extremist ideology. The place to dispute that is at WP:RS/N. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Resorting to political labels in the introduction to an article about what seems to be a rather loose group of people and not an established organization is by definition *not neutral.* This sort of political characterization of everything is why I ceased my donations and other contributions to Wikipedia. Most people who aren’t deeply into politics have no idea who the SPLC is, and the SPLC is far from infallible just like any other organization. Perhaps they show their work on many social issues, but they may not be so authoritative in certain contexts. An analogy to this is that Bill Gates has a lot of knowledge about running a big tech company and being under anti-trust investigation, so he can be cited as an authority on those matters—but he has *obvious* conflicts of interests on whether business practices of big tech companies are good for consumers or a free market.

The bottom line is that this article goes out of its way in the introduction to support a single point of view and it never ever attempts to balance that out. Actual journalists seek to report facts rather than immediately resorting to labels, which are entirely subjective and therefore opinions and not facts. Thirty years ago this would not have passed journalistic muster, let alone be accepted as part of an encyclopedia. This introduction is a disgrace to what once was an encyclopedia founded to provide a neutral point of view.

One does not need to know whether a source is reliable or not to be able to distinguish fact from opinion. This introduction should be heavily reduced until someone can clearly articulate a more neutral description. Nobody’s opinion should be cited as fact, only as their opinion on the matter. And it should probably NOT be in the introduction to the article.

And I’m not signing this purposely. Leehawkins (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Have another look at the sources supporting the statements in the lead section you seem to be concerned about. They are academic works, not journalism, and include papers published in well-regarded scholarly journals, and monographs published by outfits such as Harvard University Press. In other words, they are the most reliable and authoritative sources for our purposes of writing an encyclopedia. We are not going to change content because you feel these sources just represent someone's opinion; if there are other, similarly reliable sources, which treat the subject differently, then you are free to cite them here and propose changes based on their content. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Also—for an example of how to write a neutral introduction, perhaps use the introduction from the “men’s rights movements” as an example. It even cites the SPLC with nuance. I’m sure that can be accomplished here. I still think that one organization should not be chosen as such an authority as to be cited by name in the introduction to any article describing a very broad group of people, but at least on that article it is done with nuance rather than bluntness. If you truly want to be the “world’s encyclopedia” then you really need to embrace multiple perspectives factually. When one perspective stands on the wrong side of a matter—like when Southern US states advocated for a cruel and unjust system of slavery, or when eugenics were used to justify the continued mistreatment of ethnic groups—then it’s pretty easy for a neutral reader to see that. You’re not going to change hearts and minds by only presenting an “accepted” perspective. *Who* accepts that perspective? Are they infallible? No human is infallible. Galileo thought the earth revolves around the sun. The Church disagreed. Both were not technically entirely wrong—because science from guys like Einstein has found that it’s more nuanced than that. And no doubt more nuance will be discovered in the future as our understanding of the universe increases. But no human can have absolute certainty about what is true—because we all have biased, none of us know everything, and we don’t share exactly the same experiences. So we *owe* it to people we may disagree with to represent both sides factually and neutrally even when it’s obvious that one side (or maybe even both) have some serious flaws in their arguments. Report the facts first—then report opinions from esteemed sources—but report them as their opinions and not as facts or dogma. Because even the sun wobbles because of all the planets pulling a tiny bit on them, and the Church was wrong to label people heretics without ever considering any evidence to the contrary. Leehawkins (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Note that we are not stating SPLC's categorisation of the subject as the correct perspective, we are just pointing out that they have been so categorised (which I assume you do not dispute). The assertions being made in Wikipedia's voice are supported by reliable scholarly sources. The idea of presenting 'both sides' equally is discussed in our neutral point of view policy, specifically at WP:FALSEBALANCE. If the preponderance of scholarly sources say one thing, and no equivalent sources are brought forward saying something different, then we are being neutral by describing subjects in the same way as the available sources do. Girth Summit  (blether)  15:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I apologize for the poor formatting as I’m on mobile. I would say after reading the article by Jie Liang Lin (https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxrxw.9?seq=1) in its entirety that this introduction seriously mischaracterizes what even she says about MGTOW. I seriously walked into this rabbit hole just today, and found this Wikipedia article in trying to discern what the acronym even meant.

YES if you look only at what is written in the introduction to the chapter, the words are all there. However, anyone who has ever read a scholarly paper will understand that the introduction includes *assumptions and biases* held by the author going into a discussion of their topic. And this is not just a paper, it’s actually a chapter from a book full of research.

Either way, reading the findings section and the conclusions reached renders a completely different take on this subject. The introduction includes highly prejudicial nomenclature that should not be in the very first paragraph, and cites at least one source that only appears to agree with it, but in conclusion has far more nuance than is offered here.

Furthermore the introduction to this Wikipedia article makes MGTOW sound like a somewhat loosely organized group, when the chapter cited made it clear that this is most definitely not a clearly defined group of people, but really more of a group of men who have had similar negative experiences coming together to complain, commiserate, and advise. Yes, some views held are extreme, but Jie Liang Lin points out that these views are not held broadly in the group. There’s a whole lot more nuance in her conclusions and I feel that it is disingenuous to characterize her work as supporting this Wikipedia article’s introduction.

I don’t understand why you have consistently defended this seriously biased introduction. I don’t have time or desire to read more technical articles on this—but the one I have read does not at all support the prejudices of the article. Is this category of men misogynistic by definition? I think that all these men certainly have developed a prejudice, but I don’t know that term alone adequately describes these men because it’s perhaps overly broad. Are they related to men’s rights? Somewhat, yes...but I really think the terms used to describe these men are too heavy-handed and that they mischaracterize them as far more extreme. If anything, the initial description creates a prejudice against these men, casting them as holding far more extreme opinions than research seems to show them holding across the broad group.

This introduction just sounds like a hit piece, and completely invalidates this group’s shared experiences in order to label them with strongly negative terms. I think at worse this broad group has become very cynical about relationships with women due to terrible experiences. I’m sure some wounds were self-inflicted, but probably not all of them. I think casting every group of cynics as an extremist group and pointing out that the SPLC has condemned them is a dangerous tone to take that only further alienated people who may indeed have valid grievances. Some of them certainly have decided to withdraw from society or make all of their relationships with women transactional, but does that really make them a “hate group”? These men aren’t advocating criminal activity. They aren’t even in agreement about the most extreme measures. Maybe they’re wrong about a lot of things, but it’s not like they’re remotely similar to actual organized groups who do hold some rather extreme political and social views. These men aren’t firmly into black, they’re just firmly into gray. You and I might disagree with their worldview, but what brings them together is nowhere near as sinister as this introduction makes them sound—*especially* when you read the entire chapter written by Jie Liang Lin.

So change the introduction. Because it is 100% opinion and uses heavy handed labels making this sound like an organization rather than more nuanced language indicating a wide spectrum in viewpoints held (perhaps transiently even) by a very loosely associated number of men. Leehawkins (talk) 17:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Lin clearly supports the descriptor 'anti-feminist' ("MGTOW is primarily a masculinist reaction to feminism that finds its conclusions in antifeminism, radlicalism and anarchism", amongst other frequent uses of that term). It's true that Lin says that "generalised notions of "misogeny"" are not sufficient to address the complexity of reasons why people get involved in online movements like this; however, it isn't the sole work being used to support that descriptor, so we'd need to review all of the sources to have a meaningful discussion of whether they are being misrepresented.
 * A couple of other points in response to things you raised in your lengthy post. We are not calling any individuals misogynists; we're saying it's a misogynistic movement. We say nothing about the members, who as you rightly imply may buy into the philosophy to a variable extent. I'll also note that we do not, anywhere in the article, call it a 'hate group'.
 * If you want to take this forward, I'd advise you to read the sources currently used to support the content of the lead, and make some concrete proposals for changes based on those, and on any other sources of similar quality that you are able to present. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Link to female only separatism movement
Add second paragraph to lede “Female only separatism movements have existed since the 1970s, Feminist separation, lesbian separatism, though differing in many outlooks beyond disengagement from interacting with the opposite gender.”

Add it before the third paragraph.

Added lede based on Lesbian Separatism section of Feminist Seperatism page. From that page

Lesbian separatism[edit] Charlotte Bunch, an early member of The Furies Collective, viewed separatism as a strategy, a "first step" period, or temporary withdrawal from mainstream activism to accomplish specific goals or enhance personal growth.[12]

In addition to advocating withdrawal from working, personal or casual relationships with men, The Furies recommended that lesbian separatists relate "only (with) women who cut their ties to male privilege"[13] and suggest that "as long as women still benefit from heterosexuality, receive its privileges and security, they will at some point have to betray their sisters, especially Lesbian sisters who do not receive those benefits."[13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7506:16B:872E:819 (talk) 22:28, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's already a link in the article to Separatism (via Male separatism), which explains both feminist and lesbian separatism. Do any published, reliable sources compare either to MGTOW? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangdeboeuf (talk • contribs) 22:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the male separatism in Separatism? The gender section has this only on women, but no male one.


 * The relationship between gender and separatism is complex.[25] Feminist separatism is women's choosing to separate from ostensibly male-defined, male-dominated institutions, relationships, roles and activities.[26] Lesbian separatism advocates lesbianism as the logical result of feminism. Some separatist feminists and lesbian separatists have chosen to live apart in intentional community, cooperatives, and on land trusts.[27] Queer nationalism (or "Gay separatism") seeks a community distinct and separate from other social groups.[28][29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:7506:16B:872E:819 (talk) 22:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to mention this in the lead, the two have little to do with each other other than at the most basic level. Feminist separatism is the belief that the best way to tackle the patriarchal grip on society is to have their own spaces away from men. Women's studies' programs, women's colleges, or even lesbian bars. MGTOW is an inherently-misogynist, incel-fueled hated of women, and anger over continued rejection by them. Zaathras (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you point out the male separatism in Separatism? The gender section has this only on women, but no male one.
 * The article should link to Male Separatism and Female Separatism since the most core tenant of each is to have as few interactions with the opposite gender as possible.
 * How and to what extreme MGTOW is misogynist is a distinctly different discussion and should not detract from linking it to other separatism Wiki pages. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:ECB1:8D34:6E7E:CC9C (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not the core tenet of female separatism, hence my opposition to the inclusion. Zaathras (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Author Marilyn Frye describes feminist separatism as "separation of various sorts or modes from men and from institutions, relationships, roles and activities that are male-defined, male-dominated, and operating for the benefit of males and the maintenance of male privilege – this separation being initiated or maintained, at will, by women."
 * that is from the lede of Feminist Separation and has the core tenant of separation from men and male defined institutions. Resultant of that separation is anti patriarchy.
 * Net is separation of one gender from another. 2600:1700:D591:5F10:B48D:7E25:F426:79A7 (talk) 15:41, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Misogynistic?
While there are misogynists in mgtow forums, I don't think it's necessary to call all of mgtow as misogynistic. There are many good points that this group has about the current social climate and injustices males face; saying it's all misogynistic is a low blow. 2A01:598:D839:2E07:79A3:E7F3:DB6C:4968 (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Read the FAQ at the top of this page.  Acroterion   (talk)   11:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to say MGTOW isn't misogynistic, but the FAQ is potentially undersourced for the sentence 'no reliable sources say otherwise'. What I'm saying is- is there some way one could quantify that, some link to a 'ref engine' of some sort saying that, so that these confusions weren't quite as common?Phil of rel (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * The actual statement is no reliable sources contradicting these descriptors have been found, which is true as far as this article is concerned. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * No reliable sources have been found to say they are misogynistic. Only far leftists would argue the sources used to make those arguments are reliable.```` DarkHorseSki (talk) 04:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There are reliable sources in the article. That you keep trying to delete them, then come running to the talk page to scream "THERE'S NO SOURCES" isn't fooling anyone, I'm afraid. Zaathras (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2022
In History it should be added that "NO MA'AM" is the fictional acronym for National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood which comes from the TV show Married with Children, Season 8, Episode 9, November 14, 1993. Hansdie (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

misogynistic?
I read the FAQ, I am discussing the article. The article says MGTOW is misogynistic when it's not and I simply pointed that out. specific improvements to this article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F643:5500:11BD:6BC3:F207:39AB (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Bias
This article is filled with bias opinions not based on facts. 2001:569:6FF3:5E28:90D7:7391:B6F4:E8B4 (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022
I would like the word misogynistic and white supremesist removed from this article. It's offensive to tar all men with the same brush. 94.175.115.150 (talk) 19:26, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * the article isn't about "men" in general, it's about the group and it's ideology, which is well sourced. So it won't be removed. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022
Edit so that readers understand it is not ran by white supremacists. This article is not accurate and strongly comes off as it is followed by racist ppl. Remove "overlap'. ChiefRunningBear91 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

CLC ChiefRunningBear91 (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * as per previous discussions. This also isn't exactly what the article says. PRAXIDICAE🌈 20:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Misogyny?
In an encyclopedia, it is crucial to provide an accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive representation of any subject, including the MGTOW movement. Labeling the entire group as misogynistic without considering the diverse range of views and motivations among its members could lead to an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the movement.

It is essential to acknowledge that MGTOW is a decentralized movement, encompassing a wide range of perspectives and beliefs. HeerMeMoo (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide reliable sources to support your proposed changes  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Characterize?"
 * We should not be using sources that merely characterize things. Instead, they should be able to empirically support their positions with evidence or peer review. In this case, any source (the burden being on the currently used sources) would need to prove unequivocally that the entire movement is anti-women and not just anti-feminism.
 * Now for my spiel: Categorically, if you have any background in basic sociology, you can discern that being anti-women is misogynistic, while being anti-feminist is not. MGTOW is anti-feminist.
 * Back to wiki talk: I believe that using a source you found which "characterizes" anything is essentially using that source to validate the opinion of said source.
 * For example, using an encyclopedia as a source for what an apple's skin is made of is more reliable than going to a contentious website (assuming there's some fictitious argument over apple skin) that "characterizes" it as one thing and uses some disparaging term like "flimsy." And no, the encyclopedia in this example would not be “characterizing” anything by offering correct info.
 * (Misogyny is a disparaging term in this case.)
 * See:
 * "Closing Comments" in https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1618037/FULLTEXT01.pdf
 * My favorite lines being (regarding the MGTOW members researched) "online information should not be taken as representative of my informants" and "the practices of MGTOW can be understood as acts of resistance." HeerMeMoo (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I highly doubt this one qualifies. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the first paragraph of this Encyclopedia entry.It is clearly biased.
 * The use of the terms "Mysogynistic' 'Alt Right'' White Supremacy' will unfairly influence and misinform  the new reader, who simply wants an accurate definition of the subject they have looked up, and are trusting Wikipedia to provide them with.
 * This type of prejudiced writing hardly does Wikipedia, or the wider world of knowledge, a service,And it is inclined to cause the more experienced reader to reduce the level of trust they have in this valuable on line service. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:439:2815:7232:DFC1 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)


 * "It is essential" that we follow the reliable sources, which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * view above reply to @EvergreenFir HeerMeMoo (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Writ Keeper is correct. A master's thesis is not sufficient.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * HeerMeMoo, please stop this ridiculous formatting, sticking ::- after every line. It stretches out your posts twice as long as they need to be. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

One solution could be an edit that makes explicit the intellectual and/or political assumptions that those sources used to arrive at their characterisation of the movement as misogynistic. For example: "Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW /ˈmɪɡtaʊ/) is an anti-feminist, mostly-online community advocating for men to separate themselves from women and from a society which they believe has been corrupted by feminism. The community is considered misogynistic by [most/all?] feminist [sources/scholars/commentators?].". This would 1) maintain the primacy of reliable sources while 2) acknowledging any potential bias, and 3) make it transparent to the reader what assumptions would make the authority of these sources more or less credible. This is the essence of NPOV as I see it. A feminist scholar may think this label is more justified because it is backed by analysis using methods they trust, while someone skeptical of these methods could weigh this while judging the rest of the article. Most importantly, Wikipedia would not implicitly commit itself to a judgement either way on controversial methodological and political questions. 41.246.130.11 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * If you want to criticize sources, then bring more sources. That's how all this works.  G M G  talk  20:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you being serious? This doesn't engage at all with what I've said. 41.246.130.159 (talk) 10:24, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought experiment. The first sentence on the entry on branes reads "In string theory and related theories such as supergravity theories, a brane is a physical object that generalizes the notion of a point particle to higher dimensions."
 * String theory is scientifically controversial and has been criticised by mainstream scientists. How many of the mainstream critics have criticised the concept of branes in particular? If all the reliable sources that mention branes are string theorists who assume they exist, should that sentence instead read "A brane is a physical object that generalizes the notion of a point particle to higher dimensions." and implicating branes exist? How is the entry made worse by making it explicit what you need to assume to believe branes exist? 41.246.130.159 (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not . Wikipedia reports on what the sources say. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with explicitly stating the sources' assumptions, if they are known to be controversial, while doing that? 41.246.128.143 (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * These are all nonresponses. The question is if 1) the assumptions of sources are known, 2) those are assumptions are considered controversial by mainstream sources acting in good faith, and 3) only sources using these controversial assumptions report on a topic, should those assumptions be made explicit in the entry? They are on the entry about branes, they aren't here. The two responses above don't even engage with this question at all. If the answer is "no" and there are good reasons for it based on Wikipedia's policies, that's fine. But the comments above are nonresponses. 41.246.128.143 (talk) 10:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We comment on the sources' assumptions if and only if the body of reliable sources comments significantly on the sources' assumptions. In this instance I have seen no evidence that sources characterise sources' assumptions in the way you suggest. Newimpartial (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * They are indeed valid responses - just you don't like them. Please read WP:V and WP:NPOV. Oh, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is untrue and uncivil. I didn't say I didn't like their responses, I said they didn't answer the specific question I asked. Newimpartial and Writ Keeper did answer it. 41.246.128.237 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * To perhaps rephrase what Newimpartial says: your original post assumes that a) the sources that report on MGTOW negatively and used in this article are intrinsically "feminist", and b) that these "feminist sources" are fringe/controversial. You don't provide anything other than your own assertions that these are the case; that's why you are being asked for reliable sourcing of your own to support this. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 14:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Great, that is a response and is clear. So if I established that a) the sources cited in the opening sentence (Wright, Trott & Jones (2020), pp. 3–4; Nagle (2017), p. 94; Zuckerberg (2018), p. 19; Lin (2017), p. 78) could fairly be characterised as "feminist", and b) there is controversy around a feminist framework in the social sciences, that would justify the minor edit I proposed? 41.246.128.176 (talk) 17:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that would effectively be synthesis. You would need sources that indicate that these specific views or studies about MGTOW are controversial or fringe. Saying that "these studies are feminist" & "feminist things can be controversial" → "these studies are controversial" would be a faulty generalization. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 17:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "these studies are feminist" & "feminist things can be controversial" → "these studies are controversial" isn't the argument.
 * It's
 * "these studies are feminist" & "feminist studies use methods that are controversial" → "these studies arrived at their characterisation using methods that are controversial". 41.246.128.237 (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, sorry if these are stupid questions and thanks your patience in answering them. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's content policy.
 * Anyway, it seems like it would be synthesis either way so that answers my question. For better or worse, in cases where coverage of a topic is dominated by sources from a specific tradition, the content policy requires you to cite them uncritically, even if there are sources saying the tradition itself is controversial.
 * Good to know and updates my priors about the content on the site. 41.246.128.237 (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Statements regarding PUAs and MGTOWers
A sentence in the lead states: (emphasis mine)

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

These are contradictory statements. If PUAs and MGTOWers fundamentally oppose each other, how can they have mutual membership? That's how I understand this. To be honest, I'm not bothered to go through the refs right now (coz it's a lotta work) but I just thought to bring this up for anyone who might want to improve the article &mdash; Python Drink (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you're talking about the sentence in the History section, not the lead? The two groups referred to in that sentence are "MGTOW" and "alt-right", not "MGTOW" and "PUAs". Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 18:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

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


 * The tags were on his own YouTube channel, as covered by reliable sources. It is not the role of the Wikipedia to prove a negative for you. Zaathras (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should be removed, but I do think we could trim it a bit. It's punching above its weight class in the History section. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think someone vying to be the leader of a G7 nation being tied to MGTOW is definitely relevant, but the current text is a bit much. Not sure it needs to include a section about how hashtags work. 174.138.198.183 (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What negative is 129.222.184.120 asking you to prove?
 * (S)he is indirectly asking the community to prove a positive - that Poilieve have any awareness of the tags, or actual involvement with MGTOW.
 * You are the one implicitly asking 129.222.184.120 to prove a negative - that Poilievre didn't have any knowledge of the tags or involvement with MGTOW.
 * How the heck is anyone supposed to prove that?
 * If the n-word popped up in the source code for one of Trudeau's YouTube videos, I doubt the Wikipedia community would be clamoring to add it to Wikipedia as "historically signifiant".
 * This is an unencyclopedic inclusion and reads like tabloid.
 * Sober Reasoning (talk) 18:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a long-concluded, 6-month-old discussion. Move on. Zaathras (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree. It's disgusting that Wikipedia is being used to amplify a political attack campaign. These edits need to be reverted, they have no place here. --Bananas21ca (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm closing this request while it is under discussion, per template instructions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

MGTOW
Is there any proof it's a misogynistic movement? 2600:8801:1098:3C00:C9FE:2218:DB6A:73A4 (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's a FAQ at the top of this page. Black Kite (talk) 10:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Misogyny?
In an encyclopedia, it is crucial to provide an accurate, unbiased, and comprehensive representation of any subject, including the MGTOW movement. Labeling the entire group as misogynistic without considering the diverse range of views and motivations among its members could lead to an unfair characterization and oversimplification of the movement.

It is essential to acknowledge that MGTOW is a decentralized movement, encompassing a wide range of perspectives and beliefs. HeerMeMoo (talk) 18:02, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Please provide reliable sources to support your proposed changes  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * "Characterize?"
 * We should not be using sources that merely characterize things. Instead, they should be able to empirically support their positions with evidence or peer review. In this case, any source (the burden being on the currently used sources) would need to prove unequivocally that the entire movement is anti-women and not just anti-feminism.
 * Now for my spiel: Categorically, if you have any background in basic sociology, you can discern that being anti-women is misogynistic, while being anti-feminist is not. MGTOW is anti-feminist.
 * Back to wiki talk: I believe that using a source you found which "characterizes" anything is essentially using that source to validate the opinion of said source.
 * For example, using an encyclopedia as a source for what an apple's skin is made of is more reliable than going to a contentious website (assuming there's some fictitious argument over apple skin) that "characterizes" it as one thing and uses some disparaging term like "flimsy." And no, the encyclopedia in this example would not be “characterizing” anything by offering correct info.
 * (Misogyny is a disparaging term in this case.)
 * See:
 * "Closing Comments" in https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1618037/FULLTEXT01.pdf
 * My favorite lines being (regarding the MGTOW members researched) "online information should not be taken as representative of my informants" and "the practices of MGTOW can be understood as acts of resistance." HeerMeMoo (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:RS, Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence. I highly doubt this one qualifies. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 05:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I read the first paragraph of this Encyclopedia entry.It is clearly biased.
 * The use of the terms "Mysogynistic' 'Alt Right'' White Supremacy' will unfairly influence and misinform  the new reader, who simply wants an accurate definition of the subject they have looked up, and are trusting Wikipedia to provide them with.
 * This type of prejudiced writing hardly does Wikipedia, or the wider world of knowledge, a service,And it is inclined to cause the more experienced reader to reduce the level of trust they have in this valuable on line service. 2A00:23C8:B9D:8601:439:2815:7232:DFC1 (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We have an FAQ that addresses all this, this is not a forum for people to complain about how something is described in reliable sources. @FMSky, please explain why you think the IP is "making a good point"? The comment above is typical of the drive-by complaints that we see on a regular basis about characterizing a misogyny-based movement as misogynistic.   Acroterion   (talk)   20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * its definitely a misogynist movement but the lead also said "white supremacist". the problem with this was that it was only backed up by the writing/opinion of a single (non-notable?) author without a page mentioned and it was prominently featured in the lead like it was a widely known fact. so i see why there are lots of IPs/driveby editors coming here to challenge some of the stuff being written. --FMSky (talk) 20:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You might want to look at the references in the FAQ for this point and see if they can be incorporated.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The page number was given in the citation: the lowercase Roman numeral x indicates a page in the foreword to the cited volume. It's not x as a placeholder or variable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence to support the conclusion that MGTOW is somehow misogynistic. It is definitely anti-feminist, but just because feminists hate MGTOW, doesn't make MGTOW misogynistic. The admin refuses to accept this fact. Wikipedia has lost all credibility when it comes to politics. This page needs a new admin. Lightningalex1 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "It is essential" that we follow the reliable sources, which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * view above reply to @EvergreenFir HeerMeMoo (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Writ Keeper is correct. A master's thesis is not sufficient.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * HeerMeMoo, please stop this ridiculous formatting, sticking ::- after every line. It stretches out your posts twice as long as they need to be. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

MGTOW communities? Members?
This article says a great deal about the MGTOW communities and their members and their beliefs. However, I am unable to confirm the existence of any such thing as an MGTOW community.

MGTOW.com is a blank page.

The NO MA'AM blog has been inactive since 2015. GalantFan (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Defunct sites exist all over the internet. The article also mentions r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum. Are you saying the entire movement is some kind of hoax and that all the published papers, books, news articles, etc. are fake? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the published papers are authoritative and define the movement? Because resistance against external definition is literally in the term, "going their own way". The lede paragraphs are biased and present a one-sided view of small but vocal subset. GalantFan (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * r/MGTOW and the MGTOW Forum also no longer exist and haven't been replaced. GalantFan (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia goes by reliable sources, not original research. You have not provided any reason these published papers are unreliable. Grayfell (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The existing sources already point out in the History that the modern followers have diverged from the original followers. Descriptions which paint it as a uniform community are therefore false. GalantFan (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * How this little coterie of women-haters define themselves is entirely irrelevant. We go by actual reliable sources. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotta spoon feed you.
 * "it is believed to have emerged in the early 2000s."
 * "Earlier members of MGTOW were largely libertarian. There is a divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW, with some earlier members expressing derision for the present-day MGTOW community."
 * "MGTOW often disavow hierarchies and claim to be leaderless; some deny that MGTOW is a group or movement at all, instead emphasizing each member's individuality and independence within a collective. "
 * Because there literally is no leader, no hierarchies, and no organization. It's like Antifa.
 * Everything I wrote in the intro is already in the article. GalantFan (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You go by sources. Their reliability is a matter of opinion. They attempt to define an ideology which is as individual as its practitioners. GalantFan (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You didn't even read the sources when you made this false claim. You did not follow the sources.
 * "which characterize the movement in its entirety as misogynistic. Zaathras (talk) 20:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC)" GalantFan (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Their reliability is a matter of opinion. I'm afraid that it most certainly is not. You are cautioned to stop making these edits, otherwise a block is likely. Zaathras (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You are not reading the sources. Some of the sources say that it has changed since 2001 and that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny. GalantFan (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I mean holy crap, twenty years ago, it was just some guys who decided not to date anymore. OMG! How terrible! GalantFan (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Some of the sources say ... that some practitioners have nothing to do with misogyny – having read most of the sources myself, this seems unlikely, but go ahead and supply the exact citations, with relevant quotes if possible.
 * According to the sources we have, the divide between early and contemporary members of MGTOW has to do with the movement becoming more overtly tied to male separatism over time. Not with being more or less misogynist. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC) edited 09:45, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Twenty-seven years ago, Alana's Involuntary Celibacy Project was started by a Canadian woman to be inclusive of sexually frustrated people of all genders. To define "incel" based on that project alone would be a simple whitewash. It's the same with this topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I am more concerned with what has been removed from the page than what has been added to it. Of course the modern online community should be discussed.
 * The problem in my view is that the origins and ideology have been completely overpowered and nearly completely eliminated from the article. GalantFan (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The best practice is to find the most reliable sources on a topic and then summarize what they say, not first decide what you the article to say and then go looking for sources to support it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That is an excuse to justify obscuring history. It does not excuse deleting 20+ years of history. GalantFan (talk) 09:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's foundational content policy is verifiability, which means that everything in a Wikipedia article must be supported by a reliable source. If this "20+ years of history" you're talking about hasn't been covered in reliable sources, then yes, lack of verifiability is the best reason to remove it from the article. Wikipedia does not do oral histories. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In the past few years, the entire tone of the article has changed radically from its focus on describing MGTOW as a lifestyle of independence into concentrating on the toxicity of online forums. MANY other editors have objected to the current focus of the article. I believe the entire article should be reverted to its original focus on MGTOW as a lifestyle. GalantFan (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To put it another way, you want the article to ignore the last 20 years of MGTOW's history because it reflects poorly on a "lifestyle" you're part of. That's not going to fly. We have an FAQ for this very reason. As I mentioned on your talk page, if you want to make such a drastic change to the article, you will need to present reliable sources that indicate this would be a comprehensive overview of the subject as it exists today. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "comprehensive overview of the subject", HA, is that what you think the current article represents? The entire article treats the subject as if it is an online club of malevolence against women.
 * Peter Banh said it as well as I have seen "MGTOW is a lifestyle. MGTOW advocates men to live a single life, focus on themselves, love themselves, take care of themselves, improve themselves. MGTOW men mind their own business, they leave women alone." GalantFan (talk) 02:15, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, feel free to present (actual) reliable sources to the contrary. I don't know who Peter Banh is, but you'll need actual published sources, not you putting words into the mouth of a random person. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As you literally just ascribe actions to me which I did not do. GalantFan (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "Reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."
 * But Wiki articles are supposed to be all those things. GalantFan (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV means fairly and proportionally reflecting the predominant views of reliable sources such as peer-reviewed academic journals and books. Not censoring material you find inconvenient or objectionable. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * MANY other editors have objected. Er, no. Single-purpose acounts, sockpuppets, trolls, and outside brigading do not count as actual editors here, when speak of gauging editorial consensus. Zaathras (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And there is another gross misrepresentation. GalantFan (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * IP user 129.222.184.120 made a lone comment, never returned.
 * User Sober Reasoning made 5 comments 15 months ago, returned for 1 more 8 months ago. Little of substances contributed elsewhere.
 * User HeerMeMoo complained about using the SPLC as a source 9 months ago, complained a few times on the talk page to complain when his edit was reverted. Never returned.
 * Those are 3 examples on the current page that initiated discussions, not including one-and-dones that commented within them. Zaathras (talk) 03:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, what's happening here? GalantFan isn't a new user, they know WP policies, they've been pointed at the FAQ. We don't need to have a debate with everyone who comes along here because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Conversely, if we do not, then some editors will claim "silence equals consent," and then blaze forward with whatever it is that they want to do or change. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Zaathras (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You claim you have consensus. You don't even represent the sources accurately.
 * "MGTOW – are men who claim to want to literally ‘go their own way’; they consider themselves separatists and encourage men to turn away from women and recentre themselves, valuing an individualistic, self-empowering way of life"
 * PDFGalantFan (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Cherry-picking a single quote from only one of many sources cited is the epitome of undue weight. FWIW, the focus on individualism and especially male separatism are already mentioned prominently in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Re cherrypicking, you should read your own source past the first sentence, and especially the conclusion. When you do that, you see things like MGTOW propagate extensive and wide-ranging passive or undirected harassment and misogyny on Twitter. The conclusion says that the MGTOW forum is dominated by a small minority of posters who had made more than half of all the comments, and routinely set the agenda of discussion, that When talking about women, users did so in an openly misogynistic way, and that When talking about MGTOW, conversations sought to define and rationalise it as an ideology, both for the individual and the collective. The content analysis suggests the communicative form was largely communitarian, with stronggroup bonding, ties and engagement. It concludes that The prevalence of communitarian behaviours, particularly in regard to moderation and policing boundaries, somewhat contradicted the liberal individualism promoted within the MGTOW ideology and how they frame themselves as a ‘lifestyle’ or ‘philosophy’. Your own source is coming to a different conclusion than what you're trying to put into the article. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:19, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, just for the record, the sentence that you keep trying to insert into the lede is the source describing how MGTOW members describe themselves, not what MGTOW actually is, which is a very important distinction. When the source discusses what MGTOW actually is in its own voice, it says (in the very next sentence): MGTOW are a subgroup of the Manosphere which is the digital manifestation of the Men’s Liberation Movement, and home to several other male-only groups (emphasis mine). So, remind me who's misrepresenting what the sources say? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 19:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I will agree with you that the POV of the lede and in fact the entire article has been radically altered since 2015. It is now composed entirely by critics. GalantFan (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You keep saying this, but change is not inherently bad. Articles are supposed to improve (as this one has) over time. MrOllie (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia follows what the reliable sources say about a subject. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources are critical of a topic, Wikipedia will be too. We don't do false balance. If you want to change the overall coverage of MGTOW, you need reliable sources that support you. You have yet to post any that do so; until you do, there's nothing in the article that needs to change. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The fact that Wikipedia said something different in 2015 is irrelevant. The age of a piece of content confers no special privileges, and articles can and will be mercilessly edited. In fact editing is the main process by which articles are improved over time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. So there is a time period of several months, after which everything someone writes can be disregarded concerning arriving at consensus. That way, consensus doesn't require a majority. It just needs a persistent editor. GalantFan (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Look, this isn't hard. You need reliable sources to support the changes you want to make. All of this other stuff about consensus or the original state of the article or whatever is a distraction. Changes to Wikipedia articles require references to reliable sources, period. So go find some and put them here, so we can look at them. That's all there is to it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 13:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to what Writ Keeper says above. GalantFan, I know you're unhappy with the state of the article, and I suspect you and I would likely disagree on most things.  That said, Wikipedia doesn't turn on a dime the way you (and I, sometimes!) would like it to.  Pick one or two small discrete changes you would like to see in the article and that are well supported in sources and suggest them.  I can promise you I will consider them in good faith, and in my experience, your other interlocutors here will do the same.  I know that's not always satisfying, but if you keep doing it over time, you might be surprised how much change you can make.  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)