Talk:Men Going Their Own Way/Archive 6

The media coverage section
I have moved it here, lock, stock and barrel:

Media coverage
The MGTOW phenomenon has been described in detail in books by writers such as Helen Smith, Kay Hymowitz, Philip Zimbardo, and in other media sources, including the Sunday Times, and Vice Magazine.

Dr. Jeremy Nicholson, for his column "The Attraction Doctor" in Psychology Today, viewed MGTOW sympathetically, calling societal and female expectations on men in relationships a "double bind", which has left many men "wounded" or "frustrated" to the point that have chosen to "opt out" entirely and instead concentrate on making themselves happy in other ways.

In February, 2011, in an article about her published thesis that what she terms "the rise of women" has had a negative influence on men, American author Kay Hymowitz suggested the reader search for terms including "MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way)" for examples of young men frustrated by women who complain of inequality while demanding preferential treatment.

A detailed account of the MGTOW phenomenon was published by Dr. Helen Smith in her 2013 book Men On Strike; Why Men are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood and the American Dream, and Why It Matters.

The Sunday Times featured an in-depth article detailing the MGTOW phenomenon.

In 2015, a BBC series hosted by Reggie Yates, called Extreme UK, mentioned MGTOW in the second episode.


 * My rationale:
 * This paragraph is a cheap and nasty placeholder to purport to show referencing. What is required is not a list of "Media coverage", but, instead, the text of salient point to be placed in valid places in the meat of the article, and the references used as real references. I have thus extracted this form the article to allow interested editors to perform just that set of actions without risking the article's deletion for improper referencing, which this is. There is even a comment in the paragraph which says " ". That is just not the way we do it.  Fiddle   Faddle  12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. The relevant points (which are the ones which mention "MGTOW" explicitly) should be integrated into the article, and the others removed entirely. For the BBC one, we could quote the relevant words, with a time offset to allow the relevant part of the broadcast to be found. -- The Anome (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Mouse Utopia Experiment
mgtow believe that the observation of Mouse Utopia Experiment is what happening with currently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.222.65 (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh? -- The Anome (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink add in mgtow in the Influence of the concept section. Do you think is ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.139.223.75 (talk) 02:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I believe this article should stand alone and not be merged or deleted.
MGTOW is a growing movement and philosophy. It's followers have set up multiple online forums. However while aiming towards the goal of Mens Rights it also stands alone and separate from the Mens Rights Movement as it's not just about the rights of mens but men following their own paths that they and they alone to choose. To delete the page would also mean we have to delete pages for groups like Anonymous or delete every single religious page and put it on a single page titled religion. We'd also have to delete all ages regarding Feminism such as the Third Wave page and put them on a single Wiki Page call FEMINISM. Also I find it interesting how so many have been nitpicking the article and have stripped it bare leaving what is really only the critisizm section without proper reason. I therefor propose the page be left as is and not deleted as it has value despite what certain biased parties may claim. RedKing09 (talk) 05:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC)RedKing09
 * The merger discussion at was closed with no merger. The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/Men Going Their Own Way where you should respond. The nitpicking is standard behavior when an article is created that sources blogs (see WP:BLOGS) and other sources that don't follow WP:RS and especially when the sources don't actually state what they are alleged to be saying. It's unfortunate that the only mainstream sources at the moment are those attacking it but if more time was spent actually listening to what is being asked instead of being defensive, it would probably help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

David Sherratt
David Sherratt is a student at Cardiff University and a MGTOW. He's been profiled in several mainstream news sources, including here, here, and here, where he explains his views and those of the movement. Are any of these considered RS? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The wales online source and the sunday times source are both already cited in the article and there's consensus above that they're both RS. I'm not sure why the independent.co.uk source isn't in the article already. It was probably an oversight or, if it was previously included, my guess is that the reference was removed for an issue other than RS, like the content attributed to it probably didn't add to the article. I don't think anyone would object to it as a source if it was used constructively. Permstrump (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Regarding synthesis
One way of thinking about this would be to consider the situation if you were writing an article about Trotskyism. Now, Trotskyism is a form of communism, but so are Leninism and Maoism. You can't just start to conflate all of them into an essay whose subject is a blur between all of these concepts, even if they are all sorta-kinda the same thing, and even if you have many specific supporting high-quality sources related to the subjects communism, Leninism or Maoism. You would have to be precise, and stick to the single narrow topic you have chosen, and use only the ones that refer specifically to Trotskyism.

The same principle applies here. MGTOW and the herbivore men are clearly sorta-kinda the same thing, and there's clearly a crossover with the Men's Rights lot,but they are not the same, and you can't blur the boundaries between all of these to make your argument. A smaller, precise article about just the one topic, with links to the articles on the others, is just much more useful to the reader than an essay-like discussion around the entire subject using MGTOW as a WP:COATRACK to hang it on.

None of this is to demean your efforts here: it's difficult to write a good article, particularly on a controversial topic. Keep on going. -- The Anome (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. However, to build on your analogy, in my view an article on MGTOW/the sexodus would be analogous to an article on communism rather than Trotskyism; and then the marriage strike, the marriage boycott, and Japan's herbivore men, would be discussed as analogous to Trotskyism, Leninism, and (e.g.) communism in Cuba, respectively. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 18:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. I believe that multiple individual small articles about well-attested subjects with reliable sources, with no attempts to synthesize them into a larger topic, would currently be the best way to go. There's clearly an article on some kind of much broader topic to be written eventually, as these trends clearly all overlap and blur into one another, but there don't seem to be sufficient WP:RS about it for us to cover that larger topic in Wikipedia yet, or apparently any consensus among reliable sources about what it might be named. As an encyclopedia, we work by reporting what reliable sources say, using the WP:NPOV convention, but we do not attempt, as a matter of policy, to be journalists or researchers ourselves. For now, there's clearly something called "MGTOW" out there in the world, people are writing about it, and there seem to be sufficient WP:RS to write this article, but that's currently all. -- The Anome (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, I wasn't referring to separate articles, but as sub-sections (sub-topics) in a single article about the "sexodus". In other words, I was referring to your erroneous conceptual classification, not the need for separate articles. I don't think there are enough distinctions to merit a separate article on the minor divisions. But never mind. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 19:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As far as the comparison to Japan's herbivore men movement, I've not seen any articles about herbivore men that compare it to MGTOW. I've only seen articles where MGTOW's compare themselves to herbivore men. I've also seen articles about MGTOW that specifically differentiate themselves from the Japanese herbivore men movement. From what I can tell, the only comparisons are primary sources. The Pizzey interview on YouTube feels WP:QUESTIONABLE to me. Maybe someone besides me and the editor who added it can weigh in on that one. Permstrump (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the issue with the Pizzey interview is whether it's from a source that exercises consistent editorial control, per WP:RS. It appears to be from a YouTube channel, "Sargon of Akkad Livestreams", which I'm pretty sure does not qualify as an WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * But Sargon is not the source in this case, Erin Pizzey is the source. —MaximumGrossTakeOffWeight(talk). 19:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * YouTube is user generated content and therefore not RS. I removed those references b/c I can't find that information in other reliable sources. Permstrump (talk) 19:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with The Anome and Permstrump here. Scarpy (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)